This excellent article is reblogged from Many Prophets One Message
We owe so much to our Creator. Our eyesight, for example, is something that we could never repay God for. Since God bestowed countless gifts on humanity without us even asking for them, what does this tell us about God’s attributes? The very act of creation bears witness to God’s abundant love and mercy. This is why when we worship God, we should do so with a feeling of love and gratitude. Unlike God however, our expressions of love and gratitude are flawed. We inevitably fall short in our worship because of our sins.
Does our Creator’s love and mercy extend itself to the forgiveness of our sins? This is the key question of this article, and as we will see, Islam and Christianity provide very different answers. Before getting into the specifics of what Islam and Christianity teach on this subject, let’s reflect on the following point. If we think about it, during the act of creation we were the recipients of God’s love and mercy without even asking for it, so how could it be denied from us when we ask God for it directly? Belief in God doesn’t just entail an acknowledgement of His existence, but it also includes the affirmation of His attributes. Denying any of God’s attributes is in fact an act of disbelief. This is why we have to be very careful when it comes to atonement as our understanding of it has serious implications on the attributes of God such as His love, justice and mercy.
ATONEMENT IN ISLAM
Islam teaches that God created man in the best of states; each baby that is born is pure and sinless:
However mankind is prone to making mistakes because we are fallible beings, an inevitable consequence of the free will that God gifted us. When God created man He did not expect us to be angels, He already had countless angels, perfect in their compliance, to do His bidding. In the creation of Adam, God wanted to bring about something different: a creature of free will, submitting to Him out of choice. A consequence is that we commit sins, and God knew we would fall into sin even before He created us. In fact if God expected us to be infallible and never fall into sin, then He would effectively be expecting us to be God-like. In Islam it is up to every human being to take responsibility for their own sins, as long as they have reached the age of discernment and are of sound mind:
Not having the safety blanket of another person carrying our sins means that Muslims have to strive in bettering themselves from the cradle to the grave, in turn making the true believer a force for good in society. In Islam two of the names of God are Al-Wadud and Al-Raheem, “The Loving” and “The Most Merciful”. These attributes manifest themselves in God’s attitude toward our sins. The Qur’an tells us:
God condemns the sins we commit, but He waits for us to repent, and when we do He welcomes us. That is the part that God loves: the repentance, the voluntary return. Prophet Muhammad taught that:
In Islam, God’s love and mercy transcends all other types of love and mercy. His love and mercy is greater than all worldly and human forms of love and mercy – even motherly love and mercy. God is an independent being who is self-sufficient and perfect. He doesn’t need or require anything. A mother’s love and mercy, although selfless, is based on her internal need to love her child. It completes her and through her sacrifices she feels whole and fulfilled. However, God’s love and mercy is not based on a need or want; it is therefore the purest form of love and mercy, because He gains absolutely nothing from loving and being merciful. Prophet Muhammad said:
ATONEMENT IN CHRISTIANITY
By comparison, Christian theology teaches that sin is like a debt that must be repaid, it cannot simply be forgiven by God:
God is portrayed as a Being whose mercy is contingent on the shedding of blood:
The Church teaches that this is why Jesus was sent to die on the cross, his sinless life represents the ultimate sacrifice to appease God’s wrath and wash away the sins of the whole of humanity, reconciling us with God. The theology that underpins the crucifixion is that humanity is inherently sinful, a consequence of Adam eating from the forbidden tree. So when Adam violated God’s command not to eat from the tree, sin entered into humanity and has remained ever since:
The solution according to the New Testament is thus: Jesus died on the cross in order to undo Adam’s “original sin”:
So we can see that the Christian concepts of atonement and divine mercy are diametrically opposed to Islam. In Islam, we are responsible for our own sins and God grants forgiveness to all who call upon Him and sincerely repent. Whereas in Christianity we have the paradoxical situation of the whole of mankind being held accountable for something we didn’t do – Adam’s original sin – and forgiven for something someone else did – Jesus’ sacrifice at the crucifixion. When you factor the Trinity into the atonement equation, things get stranger still. If Jesus is God, then the crucifixion effectively amounts to God incarnating Himself into the creation and committing suicide in order to forgive sinners from Himself. God can only forgive sin if He punishes Himself first, even though He is the one who the crime was done against. Imagine someone wronged you. If we follow this doctrine, the only way you can forgive that person is if you punish yourself first. How much sense does that make? If Jesus died on the cross for our sins, then we already have our golden ticket to heaven. There’s no need for us to strive, no need to repent, because Jesus has already done the hard work for us.
BLOOD ATONEMENT COMPROMISES GOD’S ATTRIBUTES
God’s love for mankind lies at the heart of the Gospel message:
However the crucifixion of Jesus would be a gross act of injustice on the part of God. In Christian theology, God effectively demonstrates His love by torturing and killing His son. Such a system of justice is one that we human beings ourselves wouldn’t use in an everyday practical setting. Suppose one day a judge throws you into prison for no apparent reason. Upon questioning your arrest and imprisonment, the judge says that although he knows you are innocent, he decided to punish you as a substitutionary atonement for the crimes of another who had now been set free. Would you accept the judge’s ruling? No one would accept such a situation, we would all protest and ask why we are being punished when we are innocent. Such a system is anything but just; if anyone is to be punished then it should be the guilty party. A human court that punished the innocent in place of the guilty would be considered corrupt, a miscarriage of justice. How much more unjust then would it be if God were behind such a system? Yet such a system is exactly what we have with the Christian theology of blood atonement.
If God must always get what is coming to him in order to forgive, namely a kill, then the question has to be asked whether God ever really forgives. Imagine if someone punched you and gave you a bloody nose. You have two options; in the spirit of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth you could punch them back and that would be justice, or you could just forgive them. Both these options are valid in Islam. What is not logical is that you punch the person back and say “now I forgive you”. That’s not forgiveness, because you took out your anger and got your revenge. In a similar way, the Christian portrayal of God is one of getting His blood payment, His ransom, and only then does He let you go. So we can see that with the crucifixion, forgiveness is not being fulfilled by God.
By comparison the Qur’an’s concept of divine justice and forgiveness is natural. God can forgive our transgressions without blood atonement if we ask him to, simply by calling upon Him and sincerely repenting. No one has to die; no blood has to be spilt. God doesn’t require blood to forgive; He can simply forgive, just as we forgive each another when we wrong one another in everyday life. Shouldn’t God, the creator of the love and mercy that exists among His creation, be even more capable of love and mercy? The reality is that the concept that “Jesus paid the price for our sins” is an alien creed which is incompatible with God’s love and mercy. To claim that mankind has only been able to properly access God’s forgiveness the moment Jesus shed his blood on the cross is an intolerable challenge to the principles of God’s love and mercy. We now know that the human story is so old, going back tens of thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands of years, that to say it’s only been 2,000 years since a proper relationship between man and God has been made possible, makes a mockery of the idea of divine love, because that’s not loving. A God who coherently shows mercy, compassion and forgiveness for His creation doesn’t stuff all of salvation into a single moment in human history at the crucifixion. The Qur’anic vision is very different:
In Islam the salvation offered through all of the Prophets has been the same throughout history; submission to our Creator and forgiveness granted through sincere repentance. That’s the true understanding of God as having love and mercy inscribed on His very nature.
DOES BLOOD ATONEMENT HAVE A FOUNDATION IN THE BIBLE?
The foundation of the crucifixion stands on the doctrine that the blood sacrifice alone expiates sin and reconciles man with God. At face value, the notion of Jesus sacrificing himself to redeem mankind may appear to be a noble act and undoubtedly is an aspect of Christianity that resonates deeply with its followers. But we have to ask the question, is it Biblical? When we look to the Old Testament, we find that the notion that only unblemished sacrificial blood can appease God’s wrath and atone for sin is explicitly denounced by the prophets of Israel. One such example is King Solomon. While dedicating the Temple of Jerusalem to God Almighty, Solomon makes a special plea on behalf of the Israelites:
This entire passage seems to have foreshadowed the exile of the Israelites into Babylonian captivity which took place in the 6th century BCE. The words of Solomon represent a total refutation of the Christian theology of God’s forgiveness being contingent on blood atonement – the exiled Israelites would be able to attain forgiveness through repentance and prayer.
If we fast forward to the time of Prophet Ezekiel we find the Israelites living in exile in Babylon after the destruction of Jerusalem, just as foreshadowed by Solomon. The entire chapter of Ezekiel 18 is devoted to sin and atonement. The Jewish people, perhaps under the influence of Babylonian pagan practices and beliefs, had the misapprehension that God punishes the innocent for the sins of the guilty. They ask Ezekiel:
This idea that an innocent can die as atonement for the sins of the wicked was widely known throughout the world as a practice among pagan communities. Prophet Ezekiel’s response to his people is a clear rejection of such beliefs:
So we can see that God is pleased when the guilty stop sinning and make sincere repentance. Much like God’s nature being purely One and not a Trinity, the Old Testament concept of a loving and merciful God agrees with Islam; it’s Christian theology that is the odd one out. Furthermore, in the Old Testament God’s love and mercy is not just restricted to the Jewish people, even Gentiles (non-Jews) were freely forgiven by God through sincere repentance. For example, the Old Testament describes the people of Nineveh as a wicked nation. God sent Prophet Jonah to warn them:
This was a nation of considerable size, numbering over 120,000 inhabitants:
This entire nation was spared God’s punishment in the end because they repented from their wicked ways:
When Jonah’s warning reached the king of Nineveh, he rose from his throne, took off his royal robes, covered himself with sackcloth and sat down in the dust. This is the proclamation he issued in Nineveh:“By the decree of the king and his nobles:
Do not let people or animals, herds or flocks, taste anything; do not let them eat or drink. But let people and animals be covered with sackcloth. Let everyone call urgently on God. Let them give up their evil ways and their violence. Who knows? God may yet relent and with compassion turn from his fierce anger so that we will not perish.”
When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he relented and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened. [Jonah 3:6-10]
An entire nation of over 120,000 condemned to destruction, were forgiven by God when they simply repented and fasted, without ever offering any sacrifice. In fact even though they had many animals at their disposal, which God could have easily commanded them to sacrifice, they weren’t sacrificed, but rather the animals were made to fast along with the people. From these examples we can see that the Christian theology that only unblemished sacrificial blood can appease God’s wrath and atone for sin has no foundation in the Bible.
CONCLUSION
Christian theology claims that without the cross, without the innocent blood of Jesus being spilt, mankind is cut off from God’s forgiveness. These claims bear a striking resemblance to the pagan blood sacrifices of old. In fact there are all kinds of pagan deities throughout history who needed the blood of an innocent human to appease them. If Christian atonement theology is true, then God is actually a lot like these pagan gods and goddesses. If one believes that God’s wrath at sin necessitated the blood sacrifice of Jesus in order to calm his wrath, we are not describing a god who is fundamentally different– we are simply describing another version of an angry god who needs a virgin thrown into the volcano. By comparison, Islamic theology paints a picture of God that is loving, just and merciful. No sin is too great to be forgiven; the doors of mercy are never shut. All we have to do is turn to God in repentance with a sincere heart and our sins will be washed away. Such a positive outlook on the nature of God in turn instils in us a deeper and further love for God. Significantly, this should make us want to love Him by being one of His servants. A Muslim never despairs of the love, justice and mercy of God.
References
1 – Riyad as- Salihin, Book #1, Hadith #23.
2 – Sunan of Abu Dawood, Hadith #1359.
Categories: Bible, Christianity, God, Islam
Blogging Theology 
A few brief comments from a Christian Perspective.
1. The death of the Son of God was not suicide. While the three persons of the Trinity subsist in the same substance they are three distinct persons. Therefore the Father offered up His Son as a separate entity
2. The writer is really stretching his imagination to argue that the Old Testament does not substantiate a blood sacrifice. The Tabernacle and Temple had blood sacrifice at the heart if their system. The verses quoted, viewed in the light of Old Testament truth must be interpreted against a background of atonement by blood. The fact that sacrifice was not mentioned in these references is not a coherent argument.
3. If God forgives without Justice how does he remain a just God? And if His Justice is denied is he a perfect God?
Finally , a little confused? If Allah is so merciful, so forgiving, so loving, why are Islamic regimes so intolerant towards Christians?
LikeLike
Dear Food for the Soul,
When God forgives, it is not compromising justice…if the person who committed a sin feels remorse, begs for forgiveness, amends his ways, and tried to do compensation for his sin by helping the person he offended, etc., is that not something in and of itself?
LikeLike
Dear Omer
If a judge were to forgive a guilty criminal allowing him to walk free without sanction, he would be abdicating his duties. He may be loving and forgiving but he would not be a good judge. Similarly if God is the Judge of all the Earth, as was revealed to Father Abraham, he must be consistent with his Justice. Only the offering of a propitiatory sacrifice enables God to forgive and yet remain just. In some legal systems there is the facility of pardon which enables criminals to escape punishment. A pardon, however, does not clear the perpetrator”s name, only ab acquittal can do this. God does not merely pardon, he justifies, the guilt is removed forever. He can do this on the grounds of a perfect sacrifice who took the place of the sinner.
LikeLike
The problem with this theory is two fold: Jesus did not teach it and it is unjust
to punish an innocent man for the sins of the guilty man.
LikeLike
Hi Paul, When Jesus described his Father as giving his “only begotten son” was he not giving him to die so that we might enjoy”everlasting life”. He also described himself as the shepherd who laid down his life for the sheep and spoke of giving his life a ransom for many. On the cross he cried “It us finished” indicating that a monumental transaction was completed”. God is the author of justice. Justice is His gift to man, one of His communicable attributes. Therefore when Christ died he became guilty, he became sin for us, he was made a curse for us, and this was just because the author of justice decreed it and because crucially, Jesus Christ had our sin transferred to his account. In the same way the Justified Sinner is accepted as righteous by God, because the righteous of Christ has been transferred.
LikeLike
The problem remains unsolved. Jesus was a suitable victim (I’m told) because he was an unblemished lamb. He never sinned. It is not possible to transfer moral guilt to another person – sin is not an object external to the person one can pass around from individual to individual. As Ezekiel 12 says only the guilty should be punished for their sin not the innocent.
So the Christian idea is unjust. And it was not taught by Jesus who said sin is forgiven by God by just asking Him. See the Lord’s Prayer.
LikeLike
Yes, Jesus did teach that we can be be forgiven by asking God, yet that in no way removes the need for satisfied Justice. For example, when the publican in Christ”s parable, parable asked for forgiveness he pleaded for mercy, which is the same Greek word elsewhere translated as propitiation. Christ’s closest disciples, Peter and John, both wrote of the value of Christ’s blood. The Doctrine of propitiation is not solely Pauline. Herein lies our problem, Paul. You deny original sin because you claim moral guilt cannot be transferred. Experience, as well as Scripture, teaches, that perfection does not exist in humanity. We are a depraved race, from birth, in need of redemption. Only the Redeemer can supply this basic need.
LikeLike
So If you agree with me that God can just forgive sin (as you did your first sentence) as Jesus and the prophets taught, then your Calvinist doctrine of punishment collapses.
Think of the parable of the prodigal son in Luke 15 – free forgiveness and mercy to the errant son. No sacrifice required. Your God is not a God of mercy and forgiveness. He demands his pound of flesh. Horrible. Check out https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+18&version=NIVUK
LikeLike
What I said was, the biblical statements on forgiveness must be balanced against the teaching regarding propitiation. In the parable about the publican the prayer for mercy which in the Greek teaches propitiation. You accuse Christians of distorting the Koran but you are doing the same with the Bible. The fact is, Christ voluntarily became guilty of our sin, therefore Justice was served. In my first commented I challenged Islam on other issues: awaiting f a reply???
LikeLike
No you are wrong. The parable does not teach propitiation. Notice that no major bible translation translates it that way. And Jesus says we are justified by our humility before God – not sacrifices.
Did you read Ezekiel and his refutation of your idea of transferable guilt? I stand with this prophet of God over against Calvin.
Re your Islam questions. Some one might deal with term if they have time.
LikeLike
Take note:
Luke 18v13
And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner
Romans 3v25
Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
Mercy and propitiation are the same Greek word in these instances. This is the same word The Septuagint translated Mercy Seat, the place where the blood was sprinkled.
LikeLike
Jesus says the man was justified by his humility not any sacrifice.
LikeLike
Give me the book chapter and verse for that quote, Paul
LikeLike
Ok, the publican asked for mercy, this carried the same weight as if he was asking g for God to look upon the mercy seat where the blood was sprinkled. He humbled himself because he accepted that be needed the shed blood. Faith does not justify, it is the object of faith that justifies, in this case the blood shed and sprinkled on the mercy seat. You need to consider the significance of Greek word, mercy.
LikeLike
you are reading a huge amount into the text which is just not there.
LikeLike
You need to analyse the Greek text, look at the verses and produce a more reasoned response.
LikeLike
Luke 18v13; the word is hilaskomau, which means to atone for or be propitious.
LikeLiked by 1 person
but Jesus says humility justifies, not sacrificial offerings.
LikeLike
Yes, Paul, But we must humble ourselves, acknowledge our sin, accept that we need the propitiatory offering, place our faith in that sacrifice and then we are justified. If humility in itself justified, humility would become a work of the flesh and would be a source of pride, that by OUR humility we have earned grace. Grace cannot be earned. It is given on the merits of Christ; His life, His offering, and His resurrection. You cannot divorce the humility from the word mercy and a careful consideration of what the word actually means. Remember the publican was in the temple; in the very place where sacrifices were offered. He knew what mercy meant; an offering had to be presented.
LikeLike
“accept that we need the propitiatory offering”
that is alien to Jesus’s teaching about God’s mercy and forgiveness in Luke 18.
You follow Calvin and Paul – not Jesus.
LikeLike
Sorry Paul; but you are not taking onboard what I have been saying and showing you about the word mercy. You need to refute the core meaning of the word. There is nothing in Paul’s teaching which contradicts the teaching of Jesus.
LikeLike
Answer me this:
why does NO major translation of the Bible translate the passage in Luke 18 the way you do?
Btw I’m sorry to say that Jesus and Paul disagree on many other issues eg the Law and its role in Christian discipleship. Were you aware of this?
LikeLike
The key is in the Greek text; I am sure there are variations within Arabic which the English cannot convey with the sense of the original. However, the Septuagint is a major historic translation of the Old Testament. This word is used for Mercy Seat in the Septuagint. The word points to sacrifice. It is used only twice in the New Testament, the second being a Paul in the passage already indicated in Romans 3. There the word is actually rendered Propitiation. How about you writing a blog showing how Paul and Jesus disagree and I will respond in a methodical manner.
LikeLike
My question was/is:
why does NO major translation of the Bible translate the passage in Luke 18 the way you do?
Care to address that?
LikeLike
I have already done many blog posts about the differences between Paul and Jesus
LikeLike
Post a link on this comment for ease of reference.
LikeLike
https://bloggingtheology.net/2015/02/13/jesus-and-paul-compared-and-contrasted/
I have reposted it on the from page. There are other similar articles. Just go to the search engine at the top of yr blog and type ‘Jesus and Paul’
LikeLike
Romans 3v25, The word is hilasterion which comes from the same root and means propitiation. This is the form of the word that the Septuagint, the Greek Version of the Hebrew Old Testament, that was used for what the English Bible calls the ‘mercy seat’. It wad at this place every year that sin was atoned for, by the drinking of blood on the great Day of Atonement. When Jesus cried “It is finished”, he was declaring that priests and sacrifices were no longer required. He had had made the greatest and final offering for the Atonement of sin. Yes, Jesus certainly taught that propitiation can only be received through a blood sacrifice. Not by our merits, this we do not have, by grace alone.
LikeLike
This is the translation, by Christians, of the verses in Luke 18:
‘I tell you, this man went down to his home justified rather than the other; for all who exalt themselves will be humbled, but all who humble themselves will be exalted.’
As given by the NIV, NRSV etc.
btw can you give me ANY modern translation of the Bible that translates the verses in the way you suggest?
LikeLike
Dear friend in Jesus Christ,
Before I begin, as I would be quoting some from the Bible, I want you to believe one verse to prove the authenticity of the words that I present to you.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. – John 1:1
So this is the story of Mankind as we know and its salvation according to the Bible, according to the Word of God, and as we know now that the word is God. So This can be assured as the Plan of God, as and when He created Mankind and what happened in the years we know.
So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. Genesis 1.23
So God is perfect and thus He creates Man & Women (i.e. Adam and Eve) as pure sinless in His Own image.
And Gave them a Commandment
Genesis 2:16 says
And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”
But what Happened? Genesis 3 says
Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”
2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”
4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.
So Mankind sinned, and Bowed there Head to the Serpent which Represents Satan, and became the slave to Sin, ask yourself friend, when you sin do you want to do it that is why you it? Or You hate it after you do it.
So thus, we gave out our freedom to trade in slavery.
Now show me one slave whom its cruel master lets go for free?
The entire History of Slavery does not reveal us that does it?
The next argument, is very much contrary to what bible says dear friend,
Galatians 6:2 says Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.
Tell me one thing friend, do you know how to love? Because one who loves cannot say this thing even.
Are those who sin, not your own brothers and sisters? So if you do not help them in carrying their own cross, if you do not help them, can you even expect to get helped? So if we do not bear one’s another’s burden trust me we are not building a society, we just be stay isolated maybe in some cave? Isn’t it?
God did not even wait for people to ask for forgiveness, He forgave them, before they even knew the gravity of the sins they have committed, and I’m sure He has forgiven you too!
For God is Mercy, and in Mercy there is love.
The next argument which you have put friend, I would say that, you want to believe in God, who waits for you to repent and then forgive, or believe in the one who has already forgiven you before hand?
I mean just position yourself as a loving father, and you have a child, you know He is putting His hand, on the fire, will you not do all the things you can to stop Him getting His Hand burnt?
So Christ did not commit a suicide, or it was not cruel for our Father to sent Him to die, It was Satan who wanted to punish us, but God took a step and said, punish my son, and leave them to be reconciled.
Luke 23:34 says “Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”
Friend, Jesus from that cross, did not ask people to come back to repent, or not to hit him, or take Him down! He just said Father forgive them for they do not know what they are doing.
Jesus is telling you the same thing, when you are actually putting Him on the cross on trial right now! That’s love friend.
God Bless you dear friend.
Peace be with you.
LikeLike
Paul if you have ears listen!
I am waiting for your reply!
Where is your Allegations now?
LikeLike
Friend I would request you to open the other posts where your doubt has been manifested in the Christian belief, if you would just give us a chance we can make our statement, before your opinion becomes a statement for many!
I don’t think it would be a problem for you to debate if your faith and belief is strong.
These are the two posts which I would be glad to give my opinion.
https://bloggingtheology.net/a-message-to-christians-about-jesus/
https://bloggingtheology.net/o-christ-worshippers/
God Bless you dear friend.
LikeLike
“Dear friend” – have we met?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m sorry but that a way we Christians greet others as friends and as brothers snd sisters. I consider you as a friend in Christ, do you not?
LikeLike
I am not a Christian so no I am not your ‘friend in Christ’ – or any other kind of “dear friend”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You don’t have to be a Christian to be my brother that’s the difference Paul. You don’t even follow your own religion properly and try to condemn me!
Christ predicted that you would do this!
But what to say Like Him I forgive you too!
No all places we are greater and thanks to your refusal that my Father on Heaven will make a place for me when I go there. However I would long to see you there too! One day only time will tell! GBU
LikeLike
Paul I’m still waiting for you to answer the previous points which I discussed. As Atonement of Sins by Christians vs What you believe in.
LikeLike
The problem with this theory is two fold: Jesus did not teach it and it is unjust
to punish an innocent man for the sins of the guilty man.
Jesus did teach this in Mark 10:45 and He voluntarily came and gave His life for our sins, for people from all nations. Revelation 5:9 and 7:9
What part of “voluntarily”, out of love, “out of His own authority” do you not understand ? – John 10:18
LikeLike
Luke deleted Mark 10:45 as presumably he did not agree with Mark. Luke got it right.
LikeLike
Luke did not “delete” anything. Not having the pericope does not mean “deletion”. Matthew has it – Matthew 20:28; and Luke has whole chapters on the Lords supper, trials, crucifixion, death, resurrection – chapters 22, 23, 24 – and calls for repentance and faith in Christ for the forgiveness of sins.
“These are My words . . . the Messiah must suffer and rise again from dead on the 3rd day . . . etc. Luke 24:44-47
Epic fail on your part.
LikeLike
He did indeed delete it. The near universal view of NT Scholars (yes I know you reject their work) is that Luke used Mark in writing his gospel. This is not controversial. We can detect Luke’s views by the way he alters and changes Mark (this is known as redaction criticism). 10:45 is a very significant teaching that Luke obviously rejects.
Ken you are a fundamentalist. I don’t expect you to agree.
LikeLike
Those scholars also think Matthew used Mark – why didn’t Matthew “delete” it, since you use some of Matthew’s gospel to try and assert that he taught salvation by good works by obeying the Jewish law.
Why didn’t Matthew “delete” it? Matthew 20:28
and
Why did Luke include chapters 22, 23, 24, all consistent with the message of atonement by Jesus’ substitutionary death and repentance and faith based on that?
LikeLike
Matthew didn’t delete that verse because he agreed with Mark I presume. Luke didn’t agree with either gospel writer on Jesus being a sacrifice for sin. And I side with Luke against you.
Luke 22, 23, 24, do not teach atonement by Jesus’ substitutionary death – as you vainly suppose.
LikeLike
“Imagine someone wronged you. If we follow this doctrine, the only way you can forgive that person is if you punish yourself first.”
This is why I find it difficult to say that God came down from heaven to die for us. I believe Jesus was a human who had the Spirit and Word of God within him, that’s the closest to him being divine that I can understand. Although Jesus said he is one with the Father he also said “the Father is greater than I” (in the same gospel) so I think we need to properly understand what he meant by saying he was one with God, not just jumping to the conclusion that he is God.
Besides that the article mentions good points that should lead to more thinking and discussion rather than attacking. It’s the only way we can all come to a better understanding of the information presented before us in the scriptures. The Bible and even the gospels (particularly many of Jesus’ interactions with people and his parables such as the prodigal son and the unforgiving servant) show that God needs no sacrifice to truly forgive people. It is mainly Paul’s letters that highlight sacrifice especially in light of Jesus. I read another article from the website and came across this section:
“From this we can see that David violated three Commandments, “Thou shalt not kill”, “Thou shalt not commit adultery” and “Thou shall not covet your neighbour’s wife”. The severity of these violations is highlighted by the fact that at least one of them, the act of adultery, carries the death penalty:
If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel. [Deuteronomy 22:22]
Another devastating blow to blood atonement is the fact that David was spared the death penalty and completely forgiven by God merely on the basis of having confessed his sin:
Then I acknowledged my sin to you and did not cover up my iniquity. I said, “I will confess my transgressions to the Lord.” And you forgave the guilt of my sin. [Psalms 32:5]”
David broke 3 commandments, one of which could have resulted in his death if he were caught in the act but he repented sincerely and God forgave him. Why can’t it work like that for everyone?
I can only be humble and say that there are still many things I don’t understand but I wish to explore more to gain a better understanding. Despite what has been mentioned in the articles, it is no secret that offerings and sacrifices were a part of the worship in Israel and many parts in the Torah (such as Leviticus) highlight the importance and need to offer sacrifices to God in ancient Israel. I agree with what Food for the Soul wrote about a just God forgiving without sanction. Though it is true that God can wipe away all of our sins when we repent, there is still a sanction or consequence that results from our sin. In David’s case, though God forgave him there were still consequences for example, his first child with Bathsheba died and God also did not allow David to build the 1st Temple for him, however God still honoured David despite his flaws and sins.
The Temple sacrifices and offerings continued in Jesus’ time up until shortly after his death (Temple destroyed in 70AD), so in some ways I still feel that there was something important and necessary behind Jesus’ crucifixion, that in some way it really did accomplish something similar as to what was written in Daniel 9:24-27, otherwise the Temple would not have been destroyed and the Jews would still be performing sacrifices and offerings up till this day. Perhaps the act of partaking in the offering/sacrifice served as the sanction or consequence on the part of the Jew who sinned but Jesus’ death got rid of the need to do that. At the same time, the Bible also teaches that God prefers justice and mercy over sacrifice so it comes back to that balance again. I know the Muslims here won’t believe that at all but like I said it’s something that I need to understand and investigate for myself.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jason
Thanks. Mercy and forgiveness cancels justice and punishment. Where there is forgiveness, then justice is cancelled.
You can forgive any one my dear Jason, if that person wronged you and later felt remorse sincerely and came to you to ask for forgiveness and for you to wrong him the way he wronged you.
You can wronged him the way he wronged you but you decide not to do to him what he had done to you but let him go free of charge and you FORGAVE him. That is forgiveness. If you punish yourself then you are foolish and if you punish someone you are foolish and unjust to that person.
God must punish every sinner at all cost? even if the sinner repents? No way that is not Mercy and forgiveness from God to punish a sinner at all cost. That is the Pagan God who will punish any wrong doer at all cost and that is no Mercy and forgiveness.
Jason when you forgive someone who slaps you and later offered his cheek for you to slap back and you did not, does that mean you are unjust to your cheek? No.
God created us. If he forgives someone who beat you up with the sincere repentance of that person he can compensate you in some ways. After all He is your creator and feeds you everyday or will send you to heaven or will guide you to the right path i.e. religion without your knowledge.
God never wronged anyone so He is not guilty for someone’s wrong. Out of His Mercy and Forgiveness, he forgives free of charge to anyone who sincerely repents. He will take care of the victims at His own time. He does not have to die for anyone’s sins because He cannot die anyway, according to the Bible.
Human law. The law or commandments from God to us human beings is not for God Himself but for us. Do not confuse from Christians who insist God must satisfy Justice and He cannot do anything because He is God of Justice. How about those who call God, “God of love”. Sometimes this God of love does not show love but punishes his enemies like Jesus saying
New Living Translation
And as for these enemies of mine who didn’t want me to be their king–bring them in and execute them right here in front of me.'”
It does not matter if it is parable or not. There is no love here from the God of Trinitarians or the prophet of Unitarians.
Just, Love, Mercy, etc. are all nouns and adjectives and sometimes God or even man can change it for a purpose. It does not mean God cannot change His Mercy for some people to punishment sometimes and cancels justice for sincere repentance for some time even though He is still Merciful, Just and loving.
Thanks
LikeLike
Tribulation
Sorry my last comment was addressed to you not Jason
Thanks
LikeLike
The Temple sacrifices and offerings continued in Jesus’ time up until shortly after his death (Temple destroyed in 70AD), so in some ways I still feel that there was something important and necessary behind Jesus’ crucifixion, that in some way it really did accomplish something similar as to what was written in Daniel 9:24-27, otherwise the Temple would not have been destroyed and the Jews would still be performing sacrifices and offerings up till this day. Perhaps the act of partaking in the offering/sacrifice served as the sanction or consequence on the part of the Jew who sinned but Jesus’ death got rid of the need to do that. At the same time, the Bible also teaches that God prefers justice and mercy over sacrifice so it comes back to that balance again. I know the Muslims here won’t believe that at all but like I said it’s something that I need to understand and investigate for myself.
Tribulation:
That was very good that at least you see what Daniel 9:24-27 is saying and the significance of the temple being destroyed in 70 AD, etc. Keep seeking . . .
At the same time, the Bible also teaches that God prefers justice and mercy over sacrifice so it comes back to that balance again.
I would encourage you to look up those verses and where those quotes come from – Jesus is quoting from the OT (in Matthew 9:13 referring to Hosea 6:6, also see Isaiah 1:11; Psalm 50:8; 40:6-8 – God is rebuking bare going through the motions of rituals (sacrifices, prayers, fastings) with true heart repentance and faith)
and the context is about the Jews who just go through the rituals of sacrifice, but don’t have their heart in it and don’t also have repentance and faith. When those verses say God desires justice, righteousness, and mercy above sacrifice or ritual or tithing (as in Matthew 23:23), He is rebuking human hypocrisy and dead rituals, religion without reality; rituals without heart, repentance, faith, and the results of true faith – good deeds.
but when God Himself sacrifices Himself, it is not just ritual or “going through the motions” – it has real power and perfection behind it, the power of God to accomplish both justice and mercy. He demonstrates His love for us humans. And He accomplishes justice by punishing sin. And Jesus rose from the dead and proved everything He said and did was true.
The atonement on the cross is where justice and mercy / love come together in one action of redemption.
Justice – the Wrath of God against sin is satisfied. (Romans 3:24-26)
Love and Mercy – God’s love and mercy for sinners is demonstrated. (Romans 5:8)
Beautiful !
LikeLike
The Book 0f Acts portrays the disciples as still worshiping and sacrificing in the Temple (see Acts 3:1 hour of prayer = hour of sacrifice). Christianity did not exist. Jesus and his followers were Torah-observant Jews all their lives. You follow a different religion Ken. Islam is very similar to Judaism.
Btw Ken where in the Torah does God say a human sacrifice will do as well as a goat or sheep?
LikeLike
Hey Paul I’ll ask you one simple question!
If God is mercy in you religion then can you explain why women still get whipped and caned by Priests of your religion?
I thought priests where supposed to be image bearers of your Gods mercy?
Can you explain mercy in these events?
Women whipped 53 times
Women is caned here
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3377187/Screaming-agony-woman-caned-crowd-close-proximity-man-not-married-Indonesian-region-s-sharia-law.html
??
Please respond I would be glad to understand your Gods mercy!
LikeLike
Sharia Law law and stuff! Mercy????
LikeLike
Abby O can you please show me where in our Shariah where it stipulates that someone is to be flogged for merely being ‘seen in close proximity’ to each other without being married? ☺
LikeLike
Then you are telling me they are doing wrong? I think first you should check them before speaking to me.
For they are not following your Dear Sharia law.
I did apologies for judging you.
So I wish to end this matter I only Christ did not ask me to judge you he said to love you!!!!
God bless you Omar
LikeLike
I’m sorry to you brother and to all whom I have hurt by my previous message I’m sorry that I judged you all, this is not what my Jesus taught me He always taught me Love.
Please excuse the above comment about Sharia Law for this did not came from Love or From my God I said it because I was upset when you have put Jesus the one who put a standard on love on trial.
Forgive me.
LikeLike
Abraham ofhisglory
We have accepted your apology or repentance and remorse and we have forgiven you free of charge without punishing ourselves or our Sons/sons. That is Mercy and forgiveness taught to us by Allah our God.
Mercy and forgiveness by punishing oneself or ones Son/son is not Mercy or forgiveness. Mercy or forgiveness cancels Justice and Punishment. Where there is Justice and Punishment at all cost, then there is no Mercy and Forgiveness.
You must study Mercy and Forgiveness from your Christian side and compare it with Islamic Mercy and you will realize your God did not show Mercy to himself, his Son/son and his enemies.
Your God did not show Mercy to his enemies i.e.
New Living Translation
And as for these enemies of mine who didn’t want me to be their king–bring them in and execute them right here in front of me.'”
It does not matter whether it is parable. Punishment in hell fire or killing ones enemies is no love and mercy to them.
Jesus Christ has commanded the killing of babies on this earth and what is so brutal and barbaric like that?
I can site Protestant Christians beating Catholic and Mormons and slaves and vice versa to ask why your God allow that? but I will not do that for now just to spare your ignorance of thinking what some Muslims do is Islamic.
What some Muslims do is un-Islamic and what some Christians do is un-Christian and you will not know until you research.
Study both Islam and Christianity very well. It seems you do not know the Faiths.
Thanks,.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bro your mixing things up! Allow me to explain it to you okay give me some time I’ll explain it to you perfectly.
LikeLike
correction
I can cite……….
Not site
Thanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Paul Williams wrote:
Matthew didn’t delete that verse because he agreed with Mark I presume.
If Matthew agreed with Mark, then the whole book of Matthew has to be interpreted in light of that agreement, as does Mark, which both are teaching that Christ came to be the perfect man and die on the cross for sins and rise from the dead, and for people to realize Jesus is the Messiah and fulfilled the OT prophesies and was an atonement for sin and through repentance and faith, one can have eternal life.
And if Matthew agreed with Mark, then you cannot use other verses to try and say that one becomes righteous through obedience to the law, rather the high standards of the law expose our sin and sinfulness and seeks to frustrate us so that we will be driven to depend on Christ for Him to do the work of holiness within us.
Luke didn’t agree with either gospel writer on Jesus being a sacrifice for sin. And I side with Luke against you.
Luke 22, 23, 24, do not teach atonement by Jesus’ substitutionary death – as you vainly suppose.
Yes it does.
Why does Luke’s basic story agree with both Matthew and Mark ? – virgin birth (agreeing with Matthew), sinless life, teaches truth, teaches the gospel, did miracles, was unjustly accused, tried, suffered and died on the cross, rose from the dead, etc.” Why all those details in whole large chapters of 22, 23, 24 – all about leading to the cross and resurrection?
Luke 24:44-47
44 Then he said to them, “These are my words that 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.”
45 Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures,
46 and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, 47 and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
Luke is clearly teaching that the TaNakh (Torah, Nabi’im (Prophets) and Khetovim (Writings, Poetic books, Psalms) prophesied of three main things:
1. The suffering and substitutionary atonement of Messiah (pointing to Isaiah 53 especially, and psalm 22)
2. The resurrection from the dead of Messiah (as in Psalm 16 and Isaiah 52:13)
3. That one should repent, based on those truths, and that true repentance (and faith in Messiah) brings forgiveness of sins and that that message is to be preached to all the nations. (prophesied in Genesis 12:3, 22:18; Psalm 67; Psalm 96:3; Isaiah 49:6)
19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.
21 But behold, the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table.
Luke 22:19-21
So Luke is also agreeing with the basic contents of the Lord’s Supper, that eating the bread and drinking the wine are symbols of remembering His death and atonement for sins and “eating” is an action oriented symbol and metaphor for “having faith”. “believing in Him”, “trusting Him and His death on the cross”
LikeLike
Ken: which did Luke intentionally delete Mark 10:45? Nothing you have said explains why.
LikeLike
“Food for the soul” is correct about Luke 18:13.
Williams was refuted on this a long time ago.
ὁ θεός, ἱλάσθητί μοι τῷ ἁμαρτωλῷ. (The Greek text of the most pertinent phrase in Luke 18:13)
“O God, be propitious toward me, the sinner!” from Luke 18:13
Usually, this is translated “O God, be merciful to me, the sinner!” But Luke uses a very technical and specific term here that is a different word than the usual concepts of mercy. The mercy here is based on propitiation or the “satisfaction” or “appeasement of justice” or the “quenching of wrath”.
The same root words from “hilasmos” (propitiation) are also used in Romans 3:25, Hebrews 9:5 – where it is used of the place of the atonement, the mercy seat in the holy of holies inside the temple in the OT, where the blood of the sacrificed lambs were to be sprinkled onto. See also at the end where propitiation is used in Hebrews 2:17, 1 John 2:2, and 1 John 4:10.
It is really ironic that Paul Williams tries to use Luke 18:9-14 as somehow agreeing with Islam. The Greek word for “have mercy on me” is better translated “be propitious toward me” – because mercy is based on justice being fulfilled. The “hilasmos” ( ‘ιλασμος = propitiation in 1 John 2:2; 4:10 ) root in Luke 18:13 (verb – ‘ιλασθητι, from ‘ιλασκομαι = “to be merciful based on satisfaction” or “to be propitious or “to propitiate”) is also used in Romans 3:25-26, Hebrews 2:17; I John 2:2 and I John 4:10 and means “to appease the just wrath of”. (see more at the end of this article) It is translated as “propitiation” in the NASB and “atoning sacrifice” in the NIV. The prophesies in the OT and the Passover and tabernacle sacrifices and the temple sacrifices all point to this. Jesus Al Masih knows He is going to the cross to be the final sacrifice and atonement and ransom for sin – Mark 10:45; Matthew 20:28; Luke 22:20; Luke 24:46-47. So deep within the cry for mercy, the reason why the sinner in the parable is justified is because
1. He confesses His sin as a sinner by nature. ( the Greek definite article, τω – “the sinner”, shows us this. (not just individual sins, but the root nature of his being “the sinner”, and at the core, “sinful”.) that is what the Pharisee missed, he thought his good works were good enough to get him justified.
Islam denies that we are sinners by nature and evil and wicked and self-righteous in our hearts. So, Paul can hardly use this passage as agreeing with Islam.
2. His confession and repentance and cry for mercy is based on the future propitiatory work of Christ in the future (the future to this parable). verse 13 All true repentance and faith all through the Bible presuppose God’s holiness and wrath against sin, His justice and our guilt; the future Messiah who would be the final sacrifice, and trust in that future Messiah. (Genesis 3:15; 15:6; 12:1-3; 22:18; Exodus 12; Leviticus 1-7; 16-17; Isaiah 53; Daniel 9:24-27; Psalm 51; John 1:29; Revelation 5:9)
Therefore, Jesus’ teaching on justification in Luke 18:9-14 is in complete agreement with the apostle Paul’s teaching on justification in his epistles – Romans 3:21-28; Galatians 2:16; 3:6-24; Philippians 3:9; Ephesians 2:8-10.
Also, verse 9 of Luke 18 is a key that refutes Islam also.
9 “And He also told this parable to some people who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt.”
The Qur’an says, “you (O Muslims) are the best of peoples” (Surah 3:110) and that Christians and Jews “are the worst of creatures” (Surah 98:6). Islamic culture seems to teach that emphasis of superiority and that they are good and righteous, thus it would seem that Luke 18:9 is speaking to the hearts of Muslims to be careful of their spritual pride and self-righteousness and thinking they are good by nature. (In Islam, they have the doctrine of the “Fitrah”(Arabic) or “Fitrat” (Farsi) ( فطرت = upright nature) – Surah 30:30) – which to them is contradictory to the Biblical and Christian doctrine of original, inherited sin in the hearts and natures of all humans. (see Genesis 6:5; Jeremiah 17:9; Psalm 51; Romans 5:12; Mark 7:18-23)
Because Islam teaches that all humans are basically good, and not sinners by nature, and only weak and forgetful, and if they just get the right guidance and knowledge of Islam and do the external rituals of shahada, wudzu, salaat, fasting during Ramadan, Hajj once in lifetime, zakat, etc. So, how come all that guidance and knowledge doesn’t help get rid of secret sins, lusts, jealousies, angers, adultery, hatred, pride, selfishness, etc. ??
Because of this emphasis – it is Muslims sincerely (they think, as they don’t seem to see the depths of pride, lust, selfishness, evil motives in their hearts) who trust in themselves that they are righteous – they are good and actively preach against the Biblical doctrine of original sin and internal sins as roots of external sins; it is Muslims who have the great tendency to be like the Pharisees and self-righteous, as in this parable; which is another really ironic thing about Paul Williams trying to use this parable as somehow like Islam.
Another problem is that Islam teaches people (not always, but by having this Hadith, and the nature of humans the way they are, the whole culture lends itself to this tendency) to hide their secret embarrassing sins (especially sexual sins like lusts, Adultery, pre-marital sex, abortions) (all humans do that; but Islam takes that human weakness and puts it on steroids) – as the article that Paul wrote over a year ago, here, on “Veiling one’s wrong-doing” – January 13, 2012. I am still waiting on that Hadith reference.
The article on “Veiling One’s wrong doing” is no longer there.
NT passages where the propitiation (nouns and verbs) word group concept is used:
Romans 3:25-26
ὃν προέθετο ὁ θεὸς ἱλαστήριον
“which God put forward as a propitiation (satisfaction of justice; appeasement of wrath” – ‘ιλαστηριον )
διὰ πίστεως ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι
through faith in His blood
εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ
leading to demonstrating His righteousness . . .
διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων
through the passing over the previously committed sins,
26 ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ τοῦ θεοῦ,
in the forbearance of God
πρὸς τὴν ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ
toward the demonstration of the righteousness of His
ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ,
at the present time
εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν δίκαιον καὶ δικαιοῦντα
leading to Him being the just and the justifier
τὸν ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ.
-of the one who has faith in Jesus
Hebrews 2:17 – He had to be made like His brethren in all things . . . “in order to make propitiation for the sins of the people”
ἱλάσκεσθαι
1 John 2:2 – ‘ιλασμος
“He is the propitiation for our sins, not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world”
1 John 4:10 – ‘ιλασμον
In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
LikeLike
Ken can you name ONE modern version of the Bible that agrees with your translation of Luke 18? Jesus says the tax collector was justified by his humility before God not ritual sacrifices. This blows your whole view out of the water. OUCH!
LikeLike
Intellect wrote:
Mercy and forgiveness cancels justice and punishment. Where there is forgiveness, then justice is cancelled.
Have you ever wondered why ( in general), there is a tendency (not all Muslims, but, lets say 2 or 5 percent; 2 or 5 percent is still a lot; and maybe 20 percent support some of these things deep down in their hearts, in crying out for justice)
in the Muslim world to want to take the law into their own hands and do justice (terrorism, honor killings) ?
Please be careful, I am not saying “all”. Even if 2 or 5 percent do these things, that is still a lot of people out of over 1 Billion !!
And honor killings are very prevalent; and beating women for not following certain rules in certain areas like Taliban Afghanistan, parts of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia. In Iran, during Khomeini’s rule, they would beat women in public if just one piece of hair was showing.
Where is the mercy?
The mercy is lacking, because Justice is lacking. Islam denies that God poured out His justice at the cross, on Jesus the Son, who voluntarily and willingly came to take that punishment.
Maybe that is why there is both a lack of mercy (all the harsh rules, honor killings, beating women, throwing acid on girls and woman for showing face, etc.) and a lack of many feeling there is no justice, so people take out their anger and revenge on others.
Maybe it is prevalent because their is a lack of feeling of justice; whereas in Christianity, Justice was accomplished, and based on that, we have more power to be more merciful and forgiving.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
Get these facts right
-Before Islam, people in that region of Arabia do not show mercy to themselves and it is the Jahiliya period.
-All the injustice and mercilessness you mentioned were there in that region before Islam.
So Islam has nothing to do with honour killings, beating women and burying women and children alive. All these injustice and mercilessness was there in Arabia before Islam and that is the Jahiliya period.
Ken show me where Islam commanded for a woman to be beaten when a piece of her hair shows?
I can say so to Christians as well where women are not allowed in Churches and beaten to death as witches.
You said;
The mercy is lacking, because Justice is lacking. Islam denies that God poured out His justice at the cross, on Jesus the Son, who voluntarily and willingly came to take that punishment.
Maybe that is why there is both a lack of mercy (all the harsh rules, honor killings, beating women, throwing acid on girls and woman for showing face, etc.) and a lack of many feeling there is no justice, so people take out their anger and revenge on others.
Maybe it is prevalent because their is a lack of feeling of justice; whereas in Christianity, Justice was accomplished, and based on that, we have more power to be more merciful and forgiving
I say;
I can also link the atrocities of Christians to Christianity. Calving ordered the burning of Michael. Arians killed by Trinitarians and vice versa. Protestants beating and burning Catholics and Mormons and vice versa. Slaves being tortured to death by their Christian masters etc. If I say sex offenders are Pastors Jimmy Swaggart, Eddie Lee Long, etc. and Church Fathers and liars like Creflo A Dollar, Benny Hinn, Joel Osten etc. you will say they are not Christians.
But you will link any bad thing to Islam. That is dishonesty.
Reminder: Mercy and forgiveness cancels Justice and punishment. Where there is justice and punishment at all cost, then there is no forgiveness and Mercy.
When you pour your wrath on anything before forgiving, then it is not mercy or forgiveness.
Victims of injustice. God owns both the victims and the perpetrators and will forgive a sincerely repentant sinner free of charge without killing anyone and decides to compensate the victims in the way He(God) likes at His discretion and his own time. It is no force here. God is just not hurt Himself or His Son/son if He has any-I do not think God can have a Son/son except a metaphorical Son/son like all of us or the Sons/sons in the Bible by tonnes courtesy Ahmed Deedat.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Refer to the word used in Romans translated propitiation, same Greek root, I have covered this in a previous comment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No you have not. Translation is not a literal word-by-word transliteration. No modern Bible translation be it the NIV, ESV, NRSV etc agrees with you. And they are all Christian translations. They are experts – you I submit are not.
LikeLike
WE Vine in his Dictionary of Greek Words used in the New Testament explains this matter under the heading Propitiation. In is incorrect to state my arguments are not supported by scholarship. Romans 3v25: The word translated ‘propitiation’ in the AV is translated ”sacrifice of atonement” in the NIV. This word is from the same Greek root as the word translated Mercy in Luke 18. It all points to Christ teaching that forgiveness is on the basis of a propitiatory offering.
LikeLike
So I conclude that you have failed to find a single translation of the NT that agrees with your claim. Could it be you have overlooked a crucial point?
LikeLike
Interestingly enough, Paul, there is one other place where the noun version of the verb for mercy is used in the New Testament, Hebrews 9v5. How is the word translated? – “mercy seat”. This was the place of atonement. Paul, you are running away from the inevitable. The word mercy in Luke 18 is so interconnected with a propitiatory sacrifice. This is the theme of the bible. To argue otherwise is to miss the elephant in the room. As for Jesus. I am interested that you place so much weight on His teaching. That is good. It was He who said He was the good shepherd who laid down His life for the sheep (John 10v9). He came, in His own words, to give His life as a ransom for the many (Matthew 10v28 and Mark 10v45). He was given by the Father, again in His own words, so that sinners in this world might have everlasting life. As I have said, His closest followers, taught redemption through His blood (1st Peter 1v18-19 and 1st John 1v7). As for Paul. I understand that it is in your interests for you to discredit him because he was the Apostle born out of due season who saw the Christ after the resurrection and ascension. Paul’s dramatic conversion and ministry is proof of the resurrection of Christ. This is the glorious fact which neither Islam nor any other religion can rival. The living Christ stands apart as the The Way. The Truth and The life ( John 14v6). Yet Paul”s conversion teaches that the Christ has dramatic power to change even the most forthright of opponents to Christianity. As Christianity has spread across the world ( peacefully, unlike Islam) it will continue to grow encompassing a people from every people group and nation (Revelation 5v9). This text in Revelation written by John, the closest disciple to Jesus, teaches that those in heaven are redeemed with the blood of the one who is the Lamb of God. This was how John the Baptist first introduced Jesus to the people at Jordan; the Lamb. The Lamb signified, in Jewish thinking. sacrifice and offering. Jesus came to die for our sins. This was prefigured and prophesied in the Old Testament and fulfilled in the New Testament. He is our our only hope, Paul. He alone in The Way.
LikeLike
“The word mercy in Luke 18 is so interconnected with a propitiatory sacrifice.”
lol you are becoming a joker dude. You have FAILED to find a single Bible translation that agrees with your views. And these are your experts!
Some humility is in order. Once again: how come no Bible translation agrees with you? Could it be you are missing something BIG?
come on!
LikeLike
I have answered your questions; only to receive mockery;disappointing. Now; about mine. If Allahis a God of mercy why are Islamic regimes among the most intolerant states towards Christians?
LikeLike
actually you have not answered the questions. Why should i bother answering yours? Time for you to be sincere methinks.
LikeLike
If you do not wish accept the meanings of words, Paul, with their classical Greek usage, there is little more I can do,I am afraid. An open Spirit is required in order to learn.
LikeLike
in your improbable view every Bible has translated it wrongly and you (a non-scholar) has it right. A humble spirit is required in order to admit you might be wrong. But this is sadly lacking.
LikeLike
It seems that your method of winning a debate is to attack the credibility of the opponent logic and reason are stacked against you. I shall further compound the arguments I have made with further evidence. William Hendrickson, Greek scholar of high standing and author of New Testament Commentary wrote that the verb to be merciful in Luke 18 v 13, means ‘to render propitious…to make atonement for, to expose” (page 824 of his commentary on Luke published by Baker Academic). It seems that I am not alone, as I have already demonstrated through other forms of this Greek word in the New Testament.
LikeLike
Lol still no evidence from a single bible. Why?
LikeLike
The evidence is not in the translation but in the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. They are the best actual inspired words. The English does not always convey the true sense of the original languages. The evidence is there in the language and by comparing the usage of the words. I have done all of this. Belief is your choice?
LikeLike
so you are saying ALL modern translations are but you know better? lol
LikeLiked by 1 person
For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whos
LikeLike
For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life. John 3v16
LikeLike
Paul,
You are suppossed to study deeper; the Greek.
Just like you guys say when a question comes about the deeper meaning of an Arabic word in the Qur’an.
I have had many of my Muslim friends tell me over the past 33 years:
“Mr. Ken, you have to understand the deeper meaning of the Arabic word here.” (over a question about a verse in the Qur’an)
And just as you guys do here:
“The Islamic scholars say this or that . . . ” over the Qur’an and Arabic, exegesis, etc.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken I am not aware of a single major modern translation of the Bible that agrees with you. Not the NIV; NRSV; ESV; NLT etc. They are the experts. You are not.
Jesus said it is humility that justifies before God. Why do you as a claimed follower of Jesus run away from his explicit teaching?
LikeLike
Ken, Paul, Food for the Soul
Trinitarians are bully when it comes to words change to their whims and caprice. Jesus was SENT and it is both Greek and English. Just from no where they replace SENT to willingly, voluntarily and on his own accord.
I can go on and on with 3 as 1, God died and God did not die, God was defeated and humiliated to it is victory, God is man etc. All these are not possible. It has nothing to do with Greek or English but are impossibility no matter the language.
Ken, yes one has to know a deeper language to interpret the scripture in that language. It is common sense. There are clear and ambiguous statements like “I was sent” and “God is One” etc. that cannot be confused and it is the same in all languages and others that needs interpretation.
No one has to interpret “I was sent” because it is clear and “God is One” “Only” and “Alone”. That is salvation and that why God made it so clear for us to understand. The Trinitarian God as “3 Persons/persons 1 God is not in the Bible.
———————
Paul Williams
August 21, 2016 • 10:22 am
“The word mercy in Luke 18 is so interconnected with a propitiatory sacrifice.”
lol you are becoming a joker dude. You have FAILED to find a single Bible translation that agrees with your views. And these are your experts!
Some humility is in order. Once again: how come no Bible translation agrees with you? Could it be you are missing something BIG?
come on!
———————–
Who said the word mercy in Luke 18 is so interconnected with propitiatory sacrifice? Luke? Jesus? God?
Thanks.
LikeLike
Demonstrating that the doctrine of the atonement did not begin with Paul or Calvin but was taught by Jesus Christ:
https://apmci.wordpress.com/2016/08/23/christs-teaching-on-the-atonement/
LikeLike