Br Paul Williams has a discussion about sin in Christianity & the logic behind it

Advertisements


Categories: Bible, Islam, Jesus, Speakers Corner

189 replies

  1. If the forgiveness of sins by John’s baptism was full and without any limitation would there be a need for another baptism afterwards? If baptism is something that cleanses from sin or makes atonement for sin then there would be no need for any further baptisms but we see that that is not the case. The disciple of John needed to be baptized again. This shows the repentance associated with his baptism did not give those baptized by him eternal life or justification as it did to those who believed in Jesus and were baptized.

    Like

    • “If baptism is something that cleanses from sin or makes atonement for sin then there would be no need for any further baptisms but we see that that is not the case. The disciple of John needed to be baptized again.”

      john did an external ritual of cleaning to represent the clean state of mind. the good thing for john is that the external ritual will give the feeling of clean mind, but in jesus’ case, you only have a crucified bloody idol. when you sin, don’t you wash yourself in jesus’ blood again and again? isn’t that what christians have been doing ? don’t you imagine a crucified idol to connect with your god? you still as a christian need to be reminded of it WHEN you do sin. john was not depending ONLY on EXTERNAL ritual, the man clearly believed that with repentance comes GOOD DEEDS. this is clear in your bible.
      baptism would only work if repentance accompanied with good deeds.

      https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/people/main-articles/john-the-baptist

      Like

    • can i ask a german pagan like you how one becomes worshiper of abraham if one performs the act of sacrificing an animal in remembrance of abrahams willingness to give up anything for God anytime and place?

      can i ask you how you are not an idolater for smothering 1 person 2 natures as he is leaving the empty tomb?

      Like

  2. Acts 19 v 3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism. 4Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 5When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Progressive revelation. All faith and repentance in the OT and John the Baptizer یحیی Yahya – before Christ and before the cross – all of it looks forward to the Messiah and His “once for all sacrifice for sins”. John the Baptizer himself said about Jesus – “behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world”. (John 1:29)

    Same for Genesis 22 – the sacrifice of the ram in the place of the human (Abraham’s unique beloved son) points to the Messiah and His sacrificial atonement at the cross.

    Even the Qur’an hints at the truth of substitutionary ransom atonement – Surah 37:107 – “We have ransomed him with a mighty sacrifice”.

    وَفَدَيْنَاهُ بِذِبْحٍ عَظِيمٍ – 37:107

    The root of that word for “ransom” in Arabic, is the same root word for ransom when Mark 10:45/Matthew 20:28 is translated into Arabic or Farsi – فدیه و فدا

    “The Son of man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” Mark 10:45
    The Qur’an, by affirming the historical narrative of Genesis 22, preserves the truth of substitutionary ransom sacrifice in Surah 37:107.

    https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2016/10/21/so-why-did-allah-substitute-an-innocent-animal-in-the-place-of-abrahams-son/

    Like

    • “Progressive revelation.” Another creative trick

      Liked by 2 people

    • Then why the need for your progressive revelation as Islam is 3rd and last?

      and why the need for the progression within Islam itself – the change from Meccan Surah’s to Medina Surahs to then Caliphate / Dhimmi principles and later 4 schools of Sunni Fiq, Shiite vs. Sunni wars, and Dar Al Islam vs. Dar Al Harb – all of that is progressive revelation and interpretation also.

      Like

    • Islam, both in AHadith and Qur’an, by affirming the previous 2 monotheistic religions, could not get rid of the clear affirmation of substitutionary ransom sacrifice for forgiveness for sins.

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

      Like

    • Why why why. Boo hoo hoop. Tell me why I don’t like evangelical preacher broken records.

      Liked by 1 person

    • you did not answer the valid questions.

      Like

    • So what. I’m not interested in your fallacies nor your boring sermons.

      Liked by 1 person

    • because you cannot answer nor refute the content.

      Like

    • Lol. Sure. Who told you that? Your fake HS?

      Liked by 2 people

    • We have been through this before , Ken. No idea why you keep repeating this nonsense!
      Allah saved Abraham’s son as reward for Abraham ,and to fulfill that vision.
      It has nothing to do with your pagan concept of forgiveness !

      Liked by 3 people

    • but why the need for a substitute sacrifice ذبح and ransom فدا ، فدیه ? Allah could have stopped him from killing his son without a substitute? Truth bears repeating and you guys have never answered or refuted this; since also the Qur’an skips over all the subsequent prophesy and theology based on this in Genesis 22 – Leviticus chapters 1-7, 16-17; Isaiah 53; the whole NT, Mark 10:45, etc.

      Like

    • Also, it cannot be “pagan” since it is all through OT – Genesis 22, Leviticus, Isaiah 53, etc.

      Like

    • Allah (sw)replaced that son by a ram to fufill that vision and to become a sunnah( path) for us to do after our father. It’s jus a test and a reward, but behind that test great fruits. Read surah Hajj:37 .
      It has nothing to do with your pagan concept at all.

      In fact, that very story is something desryes your religion as whlole for how can God saved that son with a ram? You know that sins cannot be washed except with Jesus’ blood unless you think that Jesus was the sheep!

      Liked by 1 person

    • why is the Eid Al Adha عید الاضحی or عید قربان Eid e Qorban “a path for you do after your father” ?

      Why did Allah substitute a ram in the place of the human?

      How is that a reward?

      The Messiah was the fulfillment of all the prophesies about a perfect atonement –
      Daniel 9:24-27 – to make atonement, to forgive iniquity, to finish transgression . . .Messiah will be cut off (see also Isaiah 53:8 – He was cut off from the land of the living = killed.

      Yahya یحیی (John the Baptizer) the prophet said, “Behold, the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the World.” John 1:29

      Like

    • It’s a pagan concept. You use the OT backward while jews, muslims, atheists, and even honset christinas know the text itself doesn’t teach that pagan concept. Isaiah 1:18-19 should be enough for you if you’re a truthful man.

      Like

    • How can it be pagan when the Jewish Scriptures prophesy of it ?
      Daniel 9:24-27
      Isaiah 52:13-15
      Isaiah 53:1-12

      Even a well known Rabbi that Paul Williams has linked to a lot over the years admitted that Jesus sacrifice is parallel to the Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16
      https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2013/07/07/rabbi-admits-that-the-day-of-atonement-is-parallel-to-jesus-christ/

      Like

    • why didn’t allah just say, “ok, you passed the test, don’t kill him” ? Why the extra substitutionary sacrifice ransom ?

      Why the need for replacement?

      They could get sheep or rams or cows for meat anytime; which they did anyway. Your explanation does not explain the reasons for the substitutionary replacement and calling it a ransom فدا ، فدیه and does not explain calling it a slaughter/ sacrifice ذبح

      Butcher shops for meat are not “sacrificial” or worship related in nature, as the tabernacle/temple sacrifices were in the OT.

      Like

    • How can عيد الاضى be a problem 🙂 ?
      It’s called عيد الآضحى because we offer أضحية as worshipping for God Why? Read Hajj:37.
      BTW, it’s not obligatory.

      ” The Messiah was the fulfillment of all the prophesies about a perfect atonement –”
      There’s no prophecy about that.
      Then are you saying that a ram was perfect more than Issac? Answer us!

      Liked by 1 person

    • “why didn’t allah just say, “ok, you passed the test, don’t kill him” ? Why the extra substitutionary sacrifice ransom ?

      Why the need for replacement?”
      Althogh I have answered you many times, I’m gonna repeat it for you. This is called a reward ! A reward for them and to become a sunnah after our father since all the story was NOT about the human beings who cannot be saved unless god comes to be a lamb for us. Rather it’s a bout a test for Abraham and his son. Got it?

      You are the one who has to answer! Why did Allas( sw) replace Issac who deserve the Hell fire with a ram to be saved. Was a ram enough according to christanity ? Any answer?

      Like

    • Ken, you’ve been refuted on this nonsense already but like the broken record that you are, you keep repeating this nonsense. Doesn’t your lying spirit have any new ideas?

      http://quranandbible.blogspot.com/2016/05/does-islam-teach-substitutionary.html

      Like

    • no; you didn’t refute anything of my excellent points. Yours is the nonsense. Truth never changes.

      Like

    • Lol, “excellent points”…right. Someone’s a little high on themselves, huh? 😉

      Like

    • You are the one who has to answer, Ken.
      Why did Allah( sw) replace Issac who deserved the Hell fire with a ram to be saved. Was a ram enough according to christanity ? Any answer?

      Liked by 1 person

    • The ram is an innocent, sinless victim, which is the theology of Exodus 12 (Passover lambs); Leviticus 1-7; 16-17 – “spotless”, “without blemish”, – the innocent animals take the place of the sinful humans and the animal sacrifices in the OT in Exodus 12; Lev. 1-7; 16-17-
      they point to the coming Messiah – Isaiah 53; Daniel 9:24-27.

      the whole Bible teaches this progressively from Genesis to Revelation; which the NT teaches also:

      “18 knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, 19 but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ.” 1 Peter 1:18-19

      See also Revelation 5:5-6, 9-14.

      Like

    • “he innocent animals take the place of the sinful humans and the animal sacrifices”
      Wow!
      So we can be saved by sacrificing “innocent” animals?
      Why did your god (empty) himself to be a lamb for the sinners then?
      Did he forget that sacrificing “innocent” animals is enough?

      Like

    • Read Genesis 22; Exodus 12; Leviticus chapters 1-7; 16-17; Isaiah 53; and then the NT interpretation – John 1:29; Rev. 5; I Peter 1:18-19, Hebrews chapters 7, 8, 9, 10

      I Corinthians 5:7 – “For Christ, our passover lamb, has been sacrificed”

      I cannot help it if you do not study and try to sincerely understand Christian theology.

      Like

    • I’m just asking! Why is that so problematic for you?
      Here’s the question again, Ken
      Can we be saved by sacrificing “innocent” animals?
      Why did your god (empty) himself to be a lamb for the sinners then?
      Did he forget that sacrificing “innocent” animals is enough?

      *I know your theology already which is based on nonsense interpretations and contradictory books .
      Muslims, Jews, atheists, and even some christians relize this fact whether you like it or not.

      Like

    • “the innocent animals take the place of the sinful humans and the animal sacrifices in the OT in Exodus 12; Lev. 1-7; 16-17-
      they point to the coming Messiah – Isaiah 53; Daniel 9:24-27.”

      so you really believe that the writers of the ot thought that the messiahs job was to be a levitical animal sacrifice and yhwh?

      you really believe this pagan nonsense?

      Like

    • ken, why did yhwh invent a complex system only to have it UNDONE and replaced by BEATING up and nailing a human to the cross? did yhwh lose trust in his complex system?
      when isaiah says yhwh got “sick and tired” of offerings, christians are quick to point out that yhwh wants ANIMAL killings with good intentions.

      so yhwh only has a problem with intent and NOT THE ANIMAL SLICING.

      so if a jew feels GUILT , pain and sorrow after SEEING the LIFE of innocent ANIMAL go away

      and SEES the suffering of an ANIMAL which carries the jews sin into the wilderness

      then chances are the jew would probably not sin

      i quote :

      If G-d doesn’t need anything then why are there sacrifices at all? The answer is that MANKIND needs sacrifices to understand the value of life. By giving something of value and realizing that it could easily have been our life that was forfeit instead of the sacrifice. Via kosher sacrifice we experience the emotional response that mortal life is fleeting and can be gone in an instance. We may only sacrifice things we OWN — thus giving up something of value for the betterment of our spiritual selves.
      The value in sacrifice is in giving of ourselves (the best of our selves, read Genesis 4:7) and the understanding that we owe everything, including our very lives, to Him.

      This is why we sacrifice to G-d. Man is the one who NEEDS, not G-d. If the value in sacrifice is in the experience of giving of OURSELVES how does a god sacrificing himself for some nebulous reason make sense?

      The person bringing the sacrifice had to place his hand upon the animal and watch it being killed. He had to feel the life leaving the animal and realize that life is fleeting. It can be gone in a second. We must be grateful to G-d for our lives and for every precious second we are on this earth.

      end quote

      ken, should jimmy swaggart go back to KILLING animals?

      doesn’t it have GREATER effect than the killing of “man-god” who died for a short time and then came back to life?
      even mary m was “filled with joy”

      yhwh trusts in his sacrifices ken, you don’t seem to TRUST in what yhwh TRUSTS in .

      Like

    • The Jewish Scriptures show the Messiah to come would be the one who would be the final sacrifice, the atonement for sin, the “finishing” of iniquity – Daniel 7:24-27; Isaiah 52:13-15 & Isaiah 53:1-12 and the NT confirms this – Mark 10:45; John 1:29; I Peter 1:18-19; Revelation chapter 5. people from every nation, tribe, people group, and language have been purchased ( redeemed, ransomed, فدا، فدیه ) by the blood of the lamb – the Messiah (Rev. 5:5-5 – the one from the tribe of Judah, root of David, Jesus Himself, the eternal Word and eternal Son). Rev. 5:9

      Like

    • “The root of that word for “ransom” in Arabic, is the same root word for ransom when Mark 10:45/Matthew 20:28 is translated into Arabic or Farsi – فدیه و فدا”

      i don’t get a pagan like you.

      ken, what does the word “release ” mean and according to the Quranic version why was the son “released” ?

      1. because of ABRAHAMS and his sons willingness/deeds / trust

      2. because God can only release through BLOOD of animal

      “ransom”/fidya in quran is also for charity and fasting. EACH = GOOD DEEDS. SO now tell me,
      what in the story of abraham is the RELEASE connected with? your pagan beliefs or will you let the quran speak?

      Like

    • i don’t get a pagan like you.
      Qur’an calls me one of the “people of the book” and one of the “people of the gospel”, and you are suppossed to use good and beautiful arguments ( احسن ) -Surah 29:46 in your Da’wa.

      Like

    • Any answer, Ken ?
      Or you just neglect the discussion when it shows the reality of your religion. So sad.

      Like

  4. I have never seen any good intellectual argument from you, Burhanuddin1, yet your moniker is about “Burhan” برهان = reason, evidence, proof, argumentation. What an irony!!

    Mostly you just mock and bloviate. At least most of the other regular Muslims who comment here at blogging theology use argumentation and reason and try to obey Surah 29:46. You don’t.

    Like

    • It’s not my fault you don’t recognize intellectual arguments. I have given up even trying to reason with evangelical fanatics like you. Stop getting on my nerves.

      Like

    • That’s interesting coming from Ken, whose usual argument is “nope, you’re wrong”. Not exactly “a good intellectual argument”.

      Liked by 2 people

    • the details of my arguments are in my articles; but your article fails to refute them.

      Like

    • And your “details” are laughable rants by an ignorant missionary, nothing more. Your tactic is too make your own asinine commentary and then just repeat it ad naseum. I and others have refuted you on this matter and others many times. You’ve been embarrassed on the matter of atonement, angels having sex with humans, the Jewish law lasting forever as per Ezekiel, etc. Usually you just run away and then reappear somewhere else and repeat the same weak arguments. The lying spirit has failed you.

      Liked by 4 people

  5. “why didn’t allah just say, “ok, you passed the test, don’t kill him” ? Why the extra substitutionary sacrifice ransom ?”

    “Why the need for replacement?”

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

    what was the reward ken?

    how come in both the biblical and quranic account emphasis is put on the relationship between abraham and his son and no emphasis on the sacrificed item?

    why is the sacrificed animal seen as something which symbolizes abrahams willingness and his sons willingness and nothing to do with reluctant pagan man-god who begged his daddy “please remove the cup…my soul is deeply troubled….”

    why are you wrecking the relationship of abraham with his son by shoving irrelevant pagan man-god in between them?

    abraham probably used to eat a lot of meat and i am sure “innocent” did not cross his mind while he was eating.

    i am sure even jesus used to consume meat .

    i am sure even when you much on piglet, you do not think “hey, that was an INNOCENT pig i just digested”

    Like

  6. you said:
    but why the need for a substitute sacrifice ذبح and ransom فدا ، فدیه ? Allah could have stopped him from killing his son without a substitute?

    ::::::

    Abraham is WILLING to give up his son as burnt offering because his son was sinless, right?

    Abraham’s son must have been pure and sinless, otherwise why would genesis even say he was GOING to kill his human son? This indicates original sin is a lie because an innocent human son was going to be burnt

    No born in sin nature for Abraham’s kid

    Now if there was no WILLINGLNESS TO BURN the animal, how would it symbolise that Abraham is willingly to give up his life when god wants him too?

    Abraham did not become reluctant like jesus and was ready to WILLINGLY KILL his son.

    think if Abraham started to beg god to remove the cup and save his son, the animal would have become a blemished sacrifice .

    The story has relationship between 3 . it involves willing to listen and trust. And willing to do the job via human effort.

    do not rape the text by fitting jesoz into it.

    if you really like to rape the text then say that yhwh really preferred the blood and flesh of Abraham’s kid because it was free of fault.

    Can you tell me if your god is symbolic for innocent son of Abraham or the ANIMAL burnt ? Note olah offering is USELESS if Abraham did not BURNT it, he would have done half the job by cutting it.

    Since abraham used to KILL Animals and eat them , do you think that your god should have provided flower instead ?

    Since humans stopped eating humans long time ago, do you you believe we are all doing substitutionary ritual when we eat beef and chicken burger ?

    Like

  7. If the ram is not a substitute it’s just a free meal for Abraham courtesy of Allah. In that case why does Allah say it is a great ransom?

    Where are you going for your next great ransom, anyone for Burger King or McDonalds?

    Like

    • Poor evangelicals how they have to bend over backwards

      Like

    • Erasmus

      The great ransom for Abraham is that, Muslims mentions and pray(not intercession) to him and his family everyday in our prayers. We do the exact same sacrifice he did every year by performing Hajj and perfome his(Abraham’s) rituals and his family. We throw stones to symbolise when Haggar threw stones to satan when he was tempting her with water. She refused the temptations of satan and prayed and waited for God to bring her water called zamzam from the where the feet of the baby Ishmael was in the desert.

      We sacrifice a lot of animals just like like how Abraham did and distribute the meat to poor and to our Christian friends to eat. I normally invited my Christian friends to enjoy the delicious meat from my childhood till today and so are most Muslims. All because of Abraham’s obedience to God. It is a mighty sacrifice.

      It was done from the time of Abraham till today.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • correction

      I mean pray for Abraham not pray to Abraham.
      In few weeks time, Muslims all over the world will perform the mighty sacrifice of more animals to remember and pray for Prophet Abraham and his family. We will perform all the rituals he and his family did at his time and it will continue till the end times. Abraham prayed for that and we Muslims are remembering him with mighty sacrifice of Hajj and eid ul Adha.

      Thanks.

      Like

  8. It doesn’t say in the text that Abraham gave anything to anyone.

    How many people can you feed with one ram?

    Catholics pray for the dead too.

    Like

    • Do you pray for Abraham and his family daily? Muslims do that.
      Do you sacrifice ram annually like how Abraham did? Muslims do that.
      Do you perform the rituals of Abraham obedience to God? Muslims do that.

      That is the ransom of mighty sacrifice to Abraham and his family.

      Abraham prayed to God for future generation to see his obedience to God and Allah granted his prayers with mighty sacrifice that Muslims and those who submits to his God did and are still doing till the end times. Is it not amazing?

      Thanks.

      Like

  9. No one can sacrifice like Abraham. God hasn’t told anyone else to sacrifice their son. Muslims are not copying him. If they honour kill their children maybe they think they are copying him perhaps? Honour killing will get a leg up with your interpretation of what Abraham did.

    Like

    • There is no honor killing in Islam. Provide me with the verse if you have.
      Abraham did not sacrifice his son but sacrifice a ram and that is exactly what Muslims are doing.

      Thanks.

      Liked by 1 person

  10. Because God commanded Abraham to do that. Not you or anyone else.

    Like

    • May be Christians are not commanded. But Muslims are commanded to pray and remember Abraham and his family because of his obedience to God. We are commanded to perform Hajj and perform the rituals of Abraham’s and his family obedience to God including sacrificing a ram that he did.

      Thanks.

      Like

  11. ” Is it not amazing?”

    lol, it sure is.

    Like

    • “If the ram is not a substitute it’s just a free meal for Abraham courtesy of Allah. In that case why does Allah say it is a great ransom?”

      you must be an idiot. why can’t it be “great” because it was MIRACULOUSLY provided by God and this MIRACULOUS provision would SYMBOLIZE:

      1. abraham and his sons willingness
      2. no reluctance.
      3. no begging god to save his son.
      4. READY to do the will of God anytime anywhere

      SO you are about to chop your son and lo and behold God calls and gives you an animal from out of no where. this all must be symbolic for something. and i tell you the truth it is not jesus .

      Like

  12. The memorial of someone else’s sacrifice is transformed in to a sacrificial ritual itself. How’s about that?

    Apparently Mohammed liked blood too much to let go.

    We moved on to higher things.

    Like

    • “Apparently Mohammed liked blood too much to let go.”

      and what were the jews doing before muhammad was born? did they not sacrifice animals to remember the act of abraham?

      btw paul lied to you when he said “abraham was justified by faith”

      the reason he lied to you was because in the torah, the hebrew word for “righteousness”
      is connected with deeds/acts/works

      quote :

      Tzedek – justice; the practice of making sure our fellow human beings receive and get to keep what is rightfully theirs according to the laws of God
      Tzadakah – justice-love or benevolence as a duty
      Tzadik – 1). one who does tzedek and tzedakah; one who is law-abiding; 2). one who is on the right side of the law in a court case; 3). one who is correct or right in a particular circumstance
      Mishpat – from the word shofet (a judge); the law handed down by a court and accepted by the litigants or by an entire society. It can be a man-made law or a divine law.

      The word tzedakah never ever means innocent or pure or holy or clean or vindicated or justified.
      Kadosh means holy.
      Tahor means pure.
      Naki means clean.
      Lehatzdik means to vindicate or to justify (it has the same root as the word tzedek).
      Mutzdak means vindicated or justified (same root as the word tzedek).

      Tzedakah is the PERFORMANCE of BENEVOLENCE AS A DUTY. It never ever has the connotation of innocence/clean/pure/holy. Look at these verses and tell me if you think it makes sense that God is telling us to DO INNOCENCE, to DO PURITY, to DO HOLINESS. God is telling us to DO JUSTICE and JUSTICE-LOVE.

      ….
      so why did paul of saurus lie to you about what torah says?

      Like

    • can you tell me why paul of saurus RAPED the definition in the torah? why he LIED about abraham? why he LIED on his beloved torah? why ? why ? why?

      why

      here are some more quotes:

      A person is born into this world INNOCENT and PURE FROM SIN – but not a TZADIK. A tzadik is someone who ACTS according to God’s LAWS – he/she lives a life of TZEDEK (justice – the state of being law abiding) and DOING TZEDAKAH (justice-love) to his fellow humans. A rasha (a wicked person) is someone who does not live according to God’s Laws, he does not fulfill his duties of tzedakah (justice-love) to his fellow humans.
      So Adam and Eve came into the world innocent and pure from all sin, but they were not yet tzaddikim until God taught them His laws. Once they were aware of God’s laws, they could then choose whether to DO His laws or whether to NOT DO them. When they chose to do God’s laws they were tzadikim. But they were not created tzadikim.

      Paul of Tarsus and the rest of the NT teach that according to God (and the Tanakh) a tzadik is ONLY someone who believes in the “Final Eternal Yom Kippur Sacrifice (Jesus)”. And Paul of Tarsus attempts to bring proof of this from Tanakh. His “proof” is one of the most ignorant “Torah lessons” I have ever seen. He takes the word tzedakah (in the verse about Abraham) which means an act of justice-love and teaches that it instead means innocent – that “believing” is an act of tzedakah which makes the person innocent. TZEDAKAH NEVER MEANS “INNOCENT OF SIN” IN ALL OF TANAKH. Paul of Tarsus told one of the biggest whoppers in human history.

      (I need to clarify something so that I do not leave anything out. I wrote that the primary meaning of tzadik in Tanakh is a person who does tzedakah and tzedek. When the word tzadik appears in Tanakh it has this meaning the overwhelming majority of times. There are a handful of times in Tanakh that the word tzadik does not have this meaning, but rather means someone who is on the right side of the law in a court case, just as the word rasha (wicked) is sometimes used in Tanakh to mean one who is on the wrong side of the law in a court case, e.g. “and they (the judges) vindicate the tzadik and find the rasha guilty” (Deut. 25:1). This verse is speaking about people who take their grievance to court.

      However, the word tzedakah only means justice or justice-love in every instance in Tanakh. It never means innocence, nor vindication, nor justification, nor “being right with G-d” as Paul of Tarsus and the NT teach us. This one NT teaching has pulled the wool over the eyes of people who don’t know Hebrew and has also killed the heart of the Torah, namely Hashem’s love of true righteousness which is the DOING OF TZEDAKAH.)

      https://judaismresources.net/2017/07/19/2745/

      so how come erasmouse? how come? why paul abused his torah ?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Keep moving. By bye.

      Like

  13. “Apparently Mohammed liked blood too much to let go.”

    your god got kind of obsessed with killing of innocent children, so he gave birth to jesus in trinity, sent him and had him roasted by pagan sacrificers. your god seems to have wasted thousands and thousands of pounds of blood and flesh in the temple . his beloved solomon used to have lot of prostitutes in the ot , but solomon never got the adultery punishment applied on him, apparently the shedding of innocent animal was enough to cool off your god. your god definitely liked human sacrifices because in hebrews animal sacrifices weren’t rocking his boat. he even said he gave bad commands to the jews which involved killing their children, but we know he really meant they were good commands because yhwh needs human offering to cool him off.

    Like

    • “Apparently Mohammed liked blood too much to let go.”-Erasmus of bloggingtheology.

      I don’t get it when a Christian like you will say this, when your salvation is depended on blood. Not the blood of animals but human blood. That is abomination. Abraham sacrificed a ram and that is what we are doing. The meat is for food and the sacrifice is symbolic to Abraham’s obedience to God.

      Thanks.

      Liked by 1 person

  14. “so how come erasmouse? how come? why paul abused his torah ?”

    I only know kjv English.

    Like

    • Erasmus

      July 20, 2017 • 2:02 pm

      The memorial of someone else’s sacrifice is transformed in to a sacrificial ritual itself. How’s about that?

      Apparently Mohammed liked blood too much to let go.

      We moved on to higher things.

      I say;
      It is not only the ram sacrifice that Abraham did, that we are doing now. We are doing other things that Abraham and his family did in obedience to God. i.e. praying for his family, throwing stones to the devil/satan, worshiping his(Abraham’s) only one true God of Jesus, who sent Jesus according to Jesus himself, visiting the first house of worship of the only one God of him(Abraham) and many more.

      You single out only the ram sacrifice to bash. Why are the Jews still celebrating the pass over, if you want us to move on to a higher things?

      What is the higher thing? Is it not praying to one God of Abraham anytime like the Muslims are doing?

      Thanks.

      Like

  15. “You single out only the ram sacrifice to bash. Why are the Jews still celebrating the pass over, if you want us to move on to a higher things?
    What is the higher thing? Is it not praying to one God of Abraham anytime like the Muslims are doing?”

    All your add-ons are unbiblical idolatry from my point of view. The Jews never sacrificed to celebrate the piety of Abraham.

    How can they celebrate the Passover iaw the law without a priesthood and a high priest?

    Like

  16. “TZEDAKAH NEVER MEANS “INNOCENT OF SIN” IN ALL OF TANAKH. ”

    There are thousands of amateur expert translators all over the internet. I only recognize one group which produced this:

    kjv Gen 15 v 6: And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

    So according to your scholar tzedakah doesn’t mean righteousness? In my noble book it does.

    Like

    • LOL, your “noble” book is almost universally panned by scholars as a defective translation.

      Riddle me this Ignoramus. What does it mean to “humble” a woman according to your precious KJV?

      Like

    • No comment from Ignoramus? Has the riddle about your “noble” book stumped you?

      Like

  17. “All your add-ons are unbiblical idolatry from my point of view. The Jews never sacrificed to celebrate the piety of Abraham.”

    and you need to celebrate the story of a god coming back in the flesh and you use the FLESHY acts of your god to tell you how much he loves you. these are your pagan add-ons.

    this is a funny one coming from a idolatrous pagan like you. your god NEEDED a meat body and told you christians to connect with this meat body .

    animal sacrifices became IDOLATROUS in your own holy book because people started to DEPEND on the animal MORE than depending on god. didn’t your god know that it was better one trust in his invisible self ?

    i find it funny that your god knew that jews BECAME idolatrous in DEPENDING on BLOOD of animal, instead of FIXING the problem, he becomes a human and KILLS himself in the flesh and now wants you christians to have a magnetism to the flesh.

    i mean look at your words “god in flesh”

    “god walked the earth”

    “god BECAME a man”

    “god SUFFERED”

    and can i ask about your “add-ons”

    when did yhwh say in isaiah that he needs human blood or “god-man” BLOOD before he can connect with you?

    can i ask, what is wrong with EMULATING the act of saving a human life and abhoring human sacrifice?

    can i ask, what is wrong with celebrating the idea that one should willingly do the will of God?

    Like

  18. brother intellect, madman accused every muslim here of idolatry. go on his blog and see what he has written

    in every slaughter ritual the name of God is invoked.

    can you tell me how emulating abrahams ACT is idolatrous when God Himself is invoked before every slaughter?

    can you tell me how this is IDOLATROUS?

    another question. abraham is the guy who argued that celestial bodies do not deserve to be worshiped, what more would he say about an eating, drinking and breathing god who NEEDED celestial bodies like the sun to live?

    madman,

    when you kill scwein , do you invoke the name of yhwh?

    Like

  19. mr.heathcliff

    July 21, 2017 • 10:49 am

    brother intellect, madman accused every muslim here of idolatry. go on his blog and see what he has written

    I say;
    A pot calling a white tea cup black. Jesus is an image and the Bible clearly said so here

    The Ten Commandments

    Exodus 20
    4“You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. 5“You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, 6but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
    ————–

    But madmanna worships Jesus and eats his blood. What is more idolatrous than this madmanna.
    In addition, madmanna believes God can forgive any one if he wishes and he forgives those who do not believe Jesus died for his sins. What kind of a Christian is this madmanna?
    With the above believe he held the Muslim position and therefore is not a Christian but he worships Jesus who is an image and therefore violating the above biblical verse.

    I responded to him on that thread several times hoping he will respond and he never responded. He has seen the truth but will never accept it.

    Thanks.

    Like

  20. “Do you pray for Abraham and his family daily? Muslims do that.
    Do you sacrifice ram annually like how Abraham did? Muslims do that.
    Do you perform the rituals of Abraham obedience to God? Muslims do that.
    That is the ransom of mighty sacrifice to Abraham and his family.”

    Who has been ransomed by the sacrifice?

    Ransom means a payment to release someone who is held.

    Please explain. It doesn’t make sense.

    Like

    • madmanna

      If you read the Quran, it is referring to the mighty sacrifice as a generational sacrifice for people like us Muslims to be performing after Abraham. The sacrifice is ransom to Abraham himself and not to his son according to the Quran. The provision of the ram by God Himself is a mighty one i.e. a ram from Almighty to be sacrificed. It is a mighty one and has nothing to do with a blood of human being.

      Momentous sacrifice is getting a ram out of a sudden and miraculously from God. That is momentous and mighty
      Read the Quran.
      He said: “I will go to my Lord! He will surely guide me!
      “O my Lord! Grant me a righteous (son)!”
      So We gave him the good news of a forbearing son.
      Then, when (the son) reached (the age of) (serious) work with him, he said: “O my son! I have seen in a vision that I offer thee in sacrifice: now see what is thy view!” (The son) said: “O my father! Do as thou art commanded: thou will find me, if Allah so wills, one of the steadfast!”
      So when they had both submitted (to Allah), and he had laid him prostrate on his forehead (for sacrifice),
      We called out to him “O Abraham! …
      “Thou hast already fulfilled the vision!” – thus indeed do We reward those who do right.
      For this was a clear trial-
      And We ransomed him with a momentous sacrifice:
      And We left for him among generations (to come) in later times:
      “Peace and salutation to Abraham!”
      Thus indeed do We reward those who do right.
      For he was one of Our believing Servants.

      Like

  21. The son of Abraham was ransomed by substitution of the ram in the biblical record.

    Necessary for atonement because of Abraham’s sin.

    Islam substitutes a sacrifice of the piety of Abraham being offered up by Muslims in emulation and celebration of Abraham.

    This is the idolatrous switch.

    Like

    • LOL, the German pagan accuses Muslims of being “idolatrous”! That’s rich!

      Madman, you worship a man you mook! That’s idolatry. Critics of Christianity have recognized this wanton idolatry since the beginning of this pagan religion. Look at how the heretic Justin Martyr excused Christian idolatry:

      “For they proclaim our madness to consist in this, that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all; for they do not discern the mystery that is herein, to which, as we make it plain to you, we pray you to give heed.”

      In contrast,emulating Abraham (pbuh) in his piety is not “idolatry”. Madman simply is making up his own definition.

      Regarding atonement, I remember having a discussion with madman a few years back (before I got to know his alter-ego) in which I repeatedly pressed to him why Jonah’s people were forgiven without any sacrifice. Despite multiple times asking him to clarify, I got no response from madman. He simply ignored the question over and over again. It seems to me that the story of Jonah really bothers these Christian nutjobs. They simply do not have an explanation for why there was no sacrifice required for the atonement of the Ninevites.

      Like

  22. Temple said:

    “Read Genesis 22; Exodus 12; Leviticus chapters 1-7; 16-17; Isaiah 53; and then the NT interpretation – John 1:29; Rev. 5; I Peter 1:18-19, Hebrews chapters 7, 8, 9, 10

    I Corinthians 5:7 – “For Christ, our passover lamb, has been sacrificed”

    I cannot help it if you do not study and try to sincerely understand Christian theology.”

    And maybe you should read Jonah and explain why the Ninevites were not required to make a sacrifice to atone for their sins. Maybe you should read Leviticus where it states that a person can even offer wheat if that is all he can afford. Hence, blood is not the prerequisite for atonement. It is the act of piety before God.

    While you are at it, maybe you should read Ezekiel again and explain why the sacrificial system and the laws of the Torah were supposed to last forever instead of being replaced by a human sacrifice which is regarded as an abomination in the Tanakh,

    We cannot help it if you bumbling Christians misquote the Tanakh instead of trying to sincerely understand what it actually says.

    Like

  23. “The son of Abraham was ransomed by substitution of the ram in the biblical record.

    Necessary for atonement because of Abraham’s sin.”

    get the biblical RECORD straight. abraham was GOING TO BURN his child as an OLAH offering to yhwh. why would he do that if his kid was “born in sin” ?

    quote :
    Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.”

    OLAH offering. yhwh told abraham TO BURN his son as an offering to yhwh.

    quote :
    “The fire and wood are here,” Isaac said, “but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?”

    well isaac, you gonna be the object of BURNING . ABSOLUTELY NO MENTION is made of SIN.

    how can it BE about SIN when it is ABOUT TESTING ABRAHAM?

    the whole point was OBEDIENCE, nothing to do with “man-god” who BEGS his dad to REMOVE the cup and cries 3 times and REPEATS his prayer IN VAIN.

    QUOTE :
    Islam substitutes a sacrifice of the piety of Abraham being offered up by Muslims in emulation and celebration of Abraham.

    END QUOTE

    IN EVERY SACRIFICE THE NAME OF GOD IS MENTIONED. SO WHEN A MUSLIM SLICES THE NECK OF AN ANIMAL, GOD IS INVOKED.

    in christianity as jesus is being “sacrificed” jesus SAW himself as CO-EQUIVALENT to yhwh, this would be DISGUSTING IDOLATRY BECAUSE no jewish MARTYR AS he is DYING would see himself as EQUIVALENT to yhwh.

    within the “celebration” INVOLVES THAT A MUSLIM REMEMBER ALLAH, TURN TO ALLAH, INVOKE ALLAH, CALL UPON ALLAH.

    “This is the idolatrous switch.”

    HOW? HOW?

    Like

  24. nnoah offers an olah offering .
    The LORD smelled the soothing aroma; and the LORD said to Himself

    says nothing about noah offering it for his sins. the effect the smoke has is “soothing aroma”
    so the same can be said about abrahams offer.

    Like

    • Good point brother. In fact, Noah is described as “perfect”. Thus, what was the offering for if he was sinful?

      “But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.”

      Like

  25. quote :
    Who has been ransomed by the sacrifice?

    Ransom means a payment to release someone who is held.

    end quote

    in the context of the quranic story how do you know it doesn’t simply mean RELEASED and nothing to do with “demanding INNOCENT blood ” BEFORE release?

    every time we are to thank God that we are NOT cutting ourselves for meat or innocent children, we have flesh of animals to eat. so in a sense we are RELEASED from cutting ourselves and our children.

    Like

  26. i don’t think that in the quran there is even an idea with regards to abrahams slaughter of the animal that the animal was “sinless”
    i don’ t think the arabic fa da ya root employed in different forms in the quran covers ideas of christians in which they need INNOCENT blood .

    the verse could simply mean released but the christian ADDS

    “released BECAUSE God needed BLOOD OF INNOCENT ANIMAL”

    Like

  27. To be described as perfect in the OT is not sinless perfection which excludes the need of grace.

    The offering of Abraham’s son was in the context of his offering of the burnt offering for atonement.

    This offering was continuously offered throughout the OT from Adam to Christ.

    Once Abraham passed the past Islam only sees sacrifice as a means of offering up the piety of the individual through the piety of Abraham. The original purpose of the burnt offering is jettisoned and replaced with a meaning alien to the OT. This is the idolatry.

    Like

    • Ignoramus, why don’t you back up any of your asinine claims? Your personal opinions don’t matter and no one cares what you personally think.

      Where does it say that to be perfect does not mean sinless? Why did God say to Abraham to be blameless?

      The sacrificial system was not supposed to last forever. But of course, if you ask the Jews, they will say that it will last forever as per Ezekiel. That is why Christianity is definitely false. It contradicts it’s own scripture.

      The fact is that the sacrificial system was only for the Jews. And it was never meant to serve as a permanent replacement for sincere repentance, as shown by the fact that Jews spent decades in Babylon without a temple or sacrificial system.

      Nor did the system place a strict prerequisite for blood to be spilled. This is shown by the fact that a person could offer wheat as a substitute if he could not offer a ram or some other animal. This disproves Christianity’s fanatic obsession with blood atonement.

      Like

    • Ignoramus said:

      “The original purpose of the burnt offering is jettisoned and replaced with a meaning alien to the OT. This is the idolatry.”

      LOL, no. The idolatry is on the part of Christianity, which jettisoned the animal sacrifice with a human sacrifice, which is an abomination. Only the false pagan gods demanded human sacrifices. The God of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them all) is above such idolatrous and evil demands.

      Like

  28. If Noah was sinless why did he need to sacrifice at all? For himself and his seed.

    Gen 8 v 20 “And Noah builded an altar unto the Lord; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings upon the altar”

    Like

    • Because it was an act of piety you simpleton.

      Your logic makes the Bible self-contradictory, which is of course no problem for me. It doesn’t make sense to refer to Noah as perfect and then say that he had to make a sin offering. Either he was perfect or he wasn’t. Therefore, the offering must have been for something else.

      Like

  29. Why did Abraham offering burnt offerings for himself before the test and after his test?

    He was a sinner before the test and after the test. No one is arguing that his faith was not great but he was still in sin.

    Like

    • You are making up your own claims based on the a priori assumption of original sin. This nonsense is not found in the Tanakh.

      God said to Abraham:

      “I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.”

      If he was “still in sin”, then there is no point in telling him to be “perfect”.

      Like

  30. “They simply do not have an explanation for why there was no sacrifice required for the atonement of the Ninevites.”

    The Ninevites had no covenant relation with Jehovah to start with so they could not have full atonement. Jonah had to mediate between them and God. They only avoided one judgement by their repentance.

    Where was the Islamic messenger? A shortage of messengers at that time?

    Like

    • Why was there no messenger to Ninevah from among their own people as the Quran claims there was always a messenger to the peoples before Mohammed?

      Like

    • LOL, you truly are an Ignoramus.

      What difference does it make if they had no covenant? If your asinine claim is true, that God only accepts a blood atonement, then why were the Ninevites allowed to atone without a blood sacrifice? It should be obvious to any nitwit that God does not require blood as a prerequisite. That is the true spirit of the sacrificial system. What really counts is a sincere repentance, not the blood of some animal.

      The messenger to the Ninevites WAS Jonah, you crackpot! LOL, how dumb are you?

      Like

    • “Why was there no messenger to Ninevah from among their own people as the Quran claims there was always a messenger to the peoples before Mohammed?”

      Um, silly Ignoramus, don’t you realize that Moses (peace be upon him) was sent to the Israelites AND the Egyptians? You see, Ignoramus, your “Yahweh” is shown to be a tribal god, whereas the true God of the Prophets, Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He), is a universal God, the God of all people who sends messengers to all people. Jonah (peace be upon him) was a righteous man, who lived among the Ninevites. That is why the Quran refers to them as the “people of Yunus (Jonah)” (Surah 10:98).

      Like

  31. Cc

    1. and where is the olah offering described as “sinless perfection” ?

    2. Could have been an offering to say “thank you” like Noah did and had nothing to do with the rituals created later on.

    3. the meanings change. The temple sacrifice meaning would not have been the meaning in the time of Abraham or Noah.

    4.
    since fristians worship a human being, I was wondering whether you guys derive your pagan worship FROM the sacrificial animal? after all you do say that the animal is “sinless”

    a Hebrew never seemed to worship an ANIMAL, but fristians are alright with worshipping the SACRIFICED item called jesoz krist. Talk about IDOLATRY

    now where does “Islam offer piety of individual by OFFERING it THROUGH the piety of abraham?”

    Symbolize and remembering have nothing to do with idolatry.

    REMEMBERING GOD LIKE ABRAHAM did
    NO MENTION OF ABRAHAM IN THE ACTUAL SLAUGHTER. HAVING THE INTENTION THAT ALL LIFE INCLUDING THE SACRIFICED ANIMAL BELONGS TO GOD . ONE SHOULD WILLINGLY GIVE UP his LIFE WHEN AND WHERE GOD WANTS AND not become reluctant like jehsoz.

    to remember the forefathers willingness IS NOT idolatry.

    Remembering an act to draw closer to GOD cannot be idolatry

    Like

  32. Did Abraham FALTER in doing the will of god? if he didn’t falter , then his olah offering which was supposed to be his son WAS the representation of the will of god. If Abraham faltered ,and begged his god to save his son, then Abraham faltered and would be a sinner like Jesus for faltering .so your god CANNOT BE a perfect olah . olah = representation of the will of god and jehzos krist said SAVE me .so this implies ABRAHAM WAS MORE PERFECT IN his olah than jehsoz krist, and his offering represented a sacrificer who did not falter in doing the WILL of god.
    So olah in the case of Abraham can only be about DOING THE WILL of GOD and Abraham seems to pass . so in what sense was Abraham’s offer in connection to his sins, when olah represent WILL of god and Abraham DID will of god without faltering in the situation of killing his kid?
    Unintentional sins? olah = unintentional sins ?

    Like

  33. Why did Abraham give tithes to Melchizedek in recognition of his priesthood?

    A tithe is an obligation, not a freewill choice to give thanks.

    The biblical Messiah is an everlasting priest of the same kind as Melchizedek.

    “The Lord said to my Lord, thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek”

    The Islamic Messiah is not.

    Why does the institution of the priesthood vanish in Islam?

    Because Mohammed is the new mediator?

    Like

  34. notice how these missionaries make abraham ritualistic to the core ? in the story , abraham willingly wanted to do the WILL of god by BURNING his child and this must go beyond your words “tithe is an obligation”
    he was going to burn his child because he was obligated or because he wanted to do the will of god ?
    did he see RITUAL in the command of god? and what we see is that abraham was not obligated because “god WILL provide”
    abraham got rewarded for not being a RELUCTANT coward like jesus krist who faulted peoples faith but when it came to his time, he start BEGGING god to SAVE him.

    abraham must have seen BEYOND ritual when he said “god WILL provide”

    if abraham was the ritualistic pagan christian you paint him to be, he wouldn’t have gone of to a mountain , he would have done the sacrifice near places where animals were easily accessible.

    in his conscious, the man did not think, “hey maybe if my son is saved, i may need to KILL an animal instead”

    “or i’ll KILL my son and AN ANIMAL because i am a RITUALISTIC pagan christian ”

    you ruin abrahams story in genesis by injecting your pagan religion into it. i am sure abraham was thinking beyond “tithe” when he DELIBERATELY did not TAKE an animal ALONG with his son.

    don’t tell me about mediator and idolatry next time. it is you who worships the SACRIFICED thing as god
    it is you worship says “fully man and fully god” = 1 person, so you worship SACRIFICED 1 person and the human part is mediator to the SAME person.

    where do ANIMAL sacrifices point to a messiah who will be worshiped as yhwh . this “add-on” where did it come from ?

    Like

  35. Lol, Ignoramus has fired off idiotic rants but still will not answer the riddle about his “noble” book. What are you afraid of, Ignoramus?

    Like

  36. quote:

    The Olah is a burnt-offering, i.e., it is placed on the altar and completely consumed by the fire. Before the Levitical law of sacrifices was established (see Leviticus 1-7), such offerings were entirely voluntary and had nothing to do with the remission of sins. So that your two examples of Olah offerings – by Noah & Abraham – are simply for gratitude and not for any particular sin. In Leviticus 1 you will see that an Olah offering can achieve atonement.

    Like

    • And Ignoramus stands refuted!

      Like

    • Sure they did – Genesis 8:20-21 (first time Olah used in Hebrew Bible) shows the burnt offering & context of the sinfulness of mankind and the worship and sacrifice almost ALWAYS (unless the specific context shows, as in the grain offerings) had some aspect of repentance and contrition over sin. One cannot worship God without part of that worship being confession of sin and repentance from sin, and mourning over our sin.

      Nevertheless, Leviticus 1-7 and 16-17 are clear that they are Mosaic laws with reference to sin.

      Furthermore, Genesis 3, when God killed animals for clothing for Adam and Eve, AFTER they sinned, points to the shedding of blood for atonement for sin.

      Like

    • Here we go again. On other occasions the evangelical missionary will insist that animals cannot atone for the totally depraved sinful nature of man … bla bla

      Like

  37. all the animal sacrifices of the OT point to the Messiah’s atonement (Daniel 9:24-27; Isaiah 52 & 53) and the NT fulfillment (John 1:29; Mark 10:45; 1 Peter 1:18-19; Revelation chapter 5)

    Like

    • What about all the sacrifices of children and infants, do they point to jesoz? if jesoz is the animal which carries away sins, should Jews bomb him when he attempts to come back a second time? I mean if animals came back, then he would bring back all the sins.

      what do sacrifices in pagan religions point to?

      Like

    • ?
      Mr.heathcliff makes nutty and unintelligent-able goofy arguments.

      and doesn’t even know about Qadar قدر and Qada قضا and Jabr جبر in Islam.

      also, why mock with “Jesoz” ?
      go and learn Surah 29:46

      Like

    • You imagine god as a sacrificed animal you bloody humbug.

      Like

    • LOL, the only people who buy this nonsense are Christians who have been taught to believe these claims without question. They basically reduce their own status to parrots who blindly repeat the company line. Ken is obviously one such person…I mean parrot. Polly want a cracker?

      The following is from my article on the book of Daniel and the nonsense about the 70 weeks and the death of the Messiah. Christians peddle this lie to try to deceive the gullible, but people who actually take the time to research their claims will find that they are without merit:

      Christian apologists insist that the Book of Daniel predicted the coming of Jesus (peace be upon him) as well as his crucifixion.[204] So is there evidence that certain parts of the Book of Daniel predict the coming of Jesus (peace be upon him)? An objective analysis of the text will show that the answer to this question is “no”.

      According to Daniel 9:25, there would be 69 “sevens” (i.e. weeks), which in the context of the chapter refers to 69 periods of seven years each,[205] from the decree to rebuild Jerusalem and the coming of the “Anointed One”. In total, “seventy sevens” or 490 years were to pass before the Jews would be redeemed.[206] The prophecy also states that the “Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing”, which Christians interpret as referring to the crucifixion of Jesus (peace be upon him),[207] followed by the destruction of Jerusalem and the placing of the “abomination that causes desolation” in the temple, which they interpret as referring to the Roman conquest of Jerusalem in 70 CE.[208]

      However, the context simply does not allow for such an interpretation. In fact, the events described in Daniel 9 can be reliably traced to historical events which occurred during the struggle between the Jews and the Seleucids in the 2nd-century BCE, and not the 1st-century CE. As Hammer explains:

      “…the final week (i.e. seven years) is the crucial period, starting with the murder of Onias III, the high priest (described as the removal of ‘one who is anointed’ in verse 26) in 171 B.C. Halfway through this period has occurred the desecration of the temple, when Antiochus ‘put a stop to sacrifice and offering’ (verse 27).”[209]

      Furthermore, “The Jewish Study Bible” observes regarding the “Anointed One” that (emphasis in the original):

      “[i]n the context of the other historical references…the anointed leader probably refers to either Zerubbabel or the high priest Joshua (Ezra 3.2; Hag. ch 1; Zech. 6.9-15, while the anointed one is most likely the high priest Onias III, killed in 171 BCE (2 Macc. 4.30-34).”[210]

      Another reason the prophecy cannot be referring to Jesus (peace be upon him) is that the death of the “Anointed One” was supposed to happen 62 weeks (434 years) after the declaration to rebuild Jerusalem. The year of Jesus’ alleged death is not known with any certainty, though Christians generally settle for the year 30 CE. However, since Christians also cannot ascertain with certainty as to when the declaration to rebuild Jerusalem was even made, only through generous assumptions can they finagle the chronology of events to coincide (and only roughly at that!) with the approximate year of Jesus’ death! For example, Christian apologist Matt Slick admits:

      “…there is much debate among scholars regarding the decree to which Daniel is referring. There does not seem to be an easy solution.”[211]

      He and other apologists generally settle on the year 457 BCE as the most likely date of the declaration, but even with that assumption, the prophecy fails to complete the full 483 years required, since 483 minus 457 equals 26. In other words, the death of the “Anointed One” should have occurred in the year 26 BCE. But, the earliest date for Jesus’ death is assumed to be 30 CE![212]

      Moreover, as Chris Sandoval notes, the Christian interpretation ignores the clear parallels between chapters 8 and 9, the former of which definitely refers to the tyranny of Antiochus IV.[213] Thus, the interpretation posited by Christians is rather fanciful.[214] It is clear that the correct interpretation is that the prophecy was referring to events in the 2nd-century BCE.

      http://quranandbible.blogspot.com/2016/09/the-book-of-daniel.html

      Like

  38. And book of Hebrews, chapters 8, 9, 10 explain this also, shows fulfillment of Levitical sacrifices.

    Like

  39. Daniel 9:24-27

    “Seventy weeks (seventy periods of seven years = 490 years from the decree to rebuild Jerusalem) have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, . . . (focus on those 3 purposes – all about atonement for sin) (verse 24)

    that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; (verse 25)

    (483 years – Messiah appears, or is anointed at His baptism – causes Magi in Persian Empire to come to Jerusalem because the prophesy was spoken and written by Daniel in Persia around 500 BC.

    and 7 weeks (7 periods of seven years = 49 years
    and 62 periods of seven years = 434 years
    49 + 434 = 483 years – brings us to either time around Jesus’ birth or Jesus’ baptism, depending on which of the decrees of Persian kings one starts with. (Darius the Great and Ardeshir (Artaxerxes) issued decrees to rebuild the city of Jerusalem. books of Ezra and Nehemiah).

    Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off (see Isaiah 53:8 for similar concept of being cut off = killed)
    and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. (verse 26)

    the sanctuary was destroyed later in 70 AD – verse 27 – “desolations are determined” (prophesied by Jesus around 30 AD in Matthew 24)

    Like

    • LOL, see above for my refutation of this nonsense.

      None of the dates you mention can be verified. You just assume them to make your case. It’s a circular argument. You don’t know when the prophecy was made nor when Jesus was actually born or (allegedly) died. It’s just one big scam to deceive the gullible.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Yes we do know those dates, that are reasonably argumented by conservative scholars – Daniel was written around 530 BC in Persia, he prophesied the Daniel 9 prophesy a few years earlier around 539 BC. We know Jesus was born around 6-4 BC (BC because of a mistake made by a monk in the 500s, when they started the BC and AD calendar calculations. Before then, they had to go by Roman and Greek sources and they obviously had different dating systems. The death of Christ is established by history around 30 AD, and because of the weight of evidence for it; it totally demolishes Islam.

      https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2017/07/24/main-points-of-daniel-924-27-in-response-to-muslim-questions-about-forgiveness-of-sins-and-sacrifices-in-ot/

      Like

    • Lol, what a load of BS! Ken’s lying spirit is active again!

      You and your conservative scholars make up dates to suit your needs. It’s very dishonest. Your idiotic arguments have been demolished by actual scholarship and your religion with it. Get over it, you fool.

      Like

    • Faiz,
      I looked over your article and I will give you credit for a lot of work and citations and research; although your sources are mostly liberal and they all treat Daniel with an anti-supernatural bias – the main reason they don’t beleive Daniel was written in 530 BC is because they a-priori dismiss supernatural prophesies. Which is not permissible or consistent with an Islamic viewpoint. It is a combination of using liberal scholars and Jewish scholars, so of course they are not going to agree with the conservative Bible believing Christian scholarship.

      At least you interacted some with one person (Mack Slick) who holds to the conservative position.

      The year of 26 AD points to when the Messiah was anointed at His baptism.

      Daniel 9:25 – “until Messiah the Prince” points to His public appearing/anointing at His baptism. (so year 26 AD is good and reasonable)

      3 and 1/2 years later – crucifixion and death. (middle of last period of seven years)

      verse 25 – So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress.

      after that time period the messiah is cut off – verse 26 – but he tells us later it is in the middle of the seven years that the sacrifices cease, which shows that the effect of Jesus Messiah as the final sacrifice caused all the temple sacrifices after that to be of no effect or power.

      The abominations of the temple are decreed or determined by Jesus in 30 AD (Matthew 24) right before His crucifixion.

      Like

    • there is no need for such ad homenim type of Shamoun style anger and rhetoric, Faiz!
      “BS”, “lying spirit”, idiotic”, “fool”, etc.

      You don’t obey the Qur’an, Surah 29:46 Ankabut, 46 about using “beautiful, good arguments”.

      Like

    • Constable: “1. Most of
      the church fathers and the older orthodox interpreters find prophesied here
      the appearance of Christ in the flesh, His death, and the destruction of
      Jerusalem by the Romans.” (page 121-122, Notes on Daniel, Constable.)

      The first view is the view I take on Daniel. Constable lists 3: 1. the one above, 2. the liberal view, and 3. an eschatological one about Israel and the ends times (Constable’s view)

      Except for his eschatological scheme (a large gap between the 69th and 70th week, of “the church age”, and that the last period of seven years is a seven year tribulation for Israel – I don’t buy into that Pre-tribulational / Israel restored future to us scheme) he is mostly right on most other matters about Daniel.

      http://www.soniclight.com/constable/notes/pdf/daniel.pdf

      Like

    • Gleason Archer writes, “Despite the numerous objections which have been advanced by scholars who regard this as a prophecy written after the event, there is no good reason for denying to the sixth-century Daniel the composition of the entire work. This represents a collection of his memoirs made at the end of a long and eventful career which included government service from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar in the 590s [605?] to the reign of Cyrus the Great in the 530s [BC]. The appearance of Persian technical terms indicates a final recension of these memoirs at a time when Persian terminology had already infiltrated into the vocabulary of Aramaic. The most likely date of the final edition of the book, therefore, would be about 530 B.C. (Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, page 387).

      Like

    • B. Early–Sixth Century:12 (Gleason Archer, 530 BC) I gave that quote in earlier com-box.

      1. Manuscript Evidence: Manuscripts discovered at Qumran (e.g., a Florilegium found in cave 4Q), which date from the Maccabean period make it very unlikely that the book was written during the time of the Maccabees (e.g., 168 B.C.) since it would have taken some time for it to have been accepted and included in the canon13

      2. Linguistic Evidence:

      a. Aramaic: Daniel’s Aramaic demonstrates grammatical evidences for an early date more closely associated with the seventh and sixth centuries B.C. than with the second century B.C.14

      b. Persian:

      1) Persian loan words in Daniel do not necessarily argue against an early date for the book since Daniel, who lived under the Persians, could have placed the material in its final form at the latter part of his life15

      2) Four of the nineteen Persian words are not translated well by the Greek renderings of about 100 B.C. implying that their meaning was lost or drastically changed meaning that it is very unlikely that Daniel was written in 165 B.C.16

      3) The Persian words which are cited in Daniel are specifically old Persian words dating from around 300 B.C. This argues against a 165 date17

      c. Greek: Three Greek loan words in Daniel need not argue for a late date since there may well have been Greek writing prior to Plato (370 B.C.) where these words could have been used, and since they are the names of musical instruments which often are circulated beyond national boundaries, and since Greek words are found in the Aramaic documents of Elephantine dated to the fifth-century B.C.18

      3. Apocalyptic Evidence: The themes of the prominance of angels, the last judgment, the resurrection of the dead, and the establishment of the final kingdom are not themes that are limited to later apocryphal literature, but have their roots in earlier biblical literature and even Zechariah19

      4. Literary Evidence: The reason the development of history seems to stop with Antiochus IV Epiphanes is not necessarily because that was when the writer lived; it is probably for literary/theological reasons, he best foreshadows the Antichrist to come20

      5. Predictive Evidence: The fourth empire in Daniel 2 is not that of the Greeks as those who hold to a late date affirm; this is substantiated by the vision in chapter 7 were the second empire is not Media and the third empire is not Perisa, but is Greece which divides into four (the Persian empire never divided into four parts). This is also substantiated in Daniel 9 with the vision of the ram and the he-goat (with one horn and then four horns–divided Greece).21

      Quoted from this article by David Malick.

      https://bible.org/article/introduction-book-daniel#P59_10765

      Like

    • Faiz,
      you argue like Shamoun, full of anger and name calling and ad hominem. Shame!

      Like

    • Yes, because talking about “demolishing” Islam is not akin to Shamounian antics. You’re breaking my heart, Ken! Here, I’m playing the world’s smallest violin for you:

      By the way, Surah Al-Ankaboot says to use kind words when discussing with the people of the book UNLESS you are dealing with someone who has done wrong. Apologists like you promote you own views and dismiss anyone who disagrees. Not only that, but you make false claims against Islam and Muslims. I’ve known you long enough and seen enough of your material to know who I am dealing with.

      Liked by 2 people

    • and yet you are the one who acts like Shamoun.

      “you will know them by their fruits” Matthew 7:15-20

      Like

    • Aww, let me play the smallest violin for you again.

      Ken the hypocrite doesn’t seem to have a problem with his brethren like Ignoramus acting like their mentor Shamoun. Hmmm…yes, by their fruits you shall know them. Indeed…

      Liked by 1 person

    • You obviously haven’t read my article because I already dealt with the claims you make. I referred to David Malick and Gleason Archer. And based on the complete set of evidence, this was my conclusion:

      ” While debates regarding the date of composition will no doubt continue, it seems unlikely that the Book of Daniel was actually written in the 6th-century BCE, as apologists often claim. However, it also seems unlikely that the entire book was written in the 2nd-century BCE. The presence of “Daniel” in the Dead Sea Scrolls certainly shows that a 2nd-century BCE date is unlikely, at least for the entire book (if the book was actually written in two parts).[20] Furthermore, the claim that certain linguistic features in the Book of Daniel, such as the use of Greek words, prove a 2nd-century BCE date are weak. As the Christian scholar David Malick states:
      “Three Greek loan words in Daniel need not argue for a late date since there may well have been Greek writing prior to Plato (370 B.C.) where these words could have been used, and since they are the names of musical instruments which often are circulated beyond national boundaries, and since Greek words are found in the Aramaic documents of Elephantine dated to the fifth-century B.C.”[21]
      Michael Shepherd, professor of Old Testament and Hebrew at Louisiana College, provides a more cautious view and seems to be the most reasonable since it avoids the two “extreme” positions. He states:
      “…it is best to say that the sixth century date and the second century date are two extremes on a spectrum and that the actual date of the book could be anywhere in between the two.”[22]
      Thus, as far as a date of composition is concerned, it seems likely that the Book of Daniel could have been written earlier than the 2nd-century BCE, but most certainly received its final form by that time. There is also little doubt that the last six chapters were written during the Maccabean revolt and the traditional suggestion that the entire book was written in the 6th-century BCE is without merit.”

      Regarding the Florilegium, I wrote (note #20):

      “As Christian apologist David Malick points out:

      “Manuscripts discovered at Qumran (e.g., a Florilegium found in cave 4Q), which date from the Maccabean period make it very unlikely that the book was written during the time of the Maccabees (e.g., 168 B.C.) since it would have taken some time for it to have been accepted and included in the canon” (https://bible.org/article/introduction-book-daniel).

      Of course, this does not mean that the entire book was present at Qumran. More likely, some parts may have been present (including a variant story involving the Babylonian king Nabonidus, as we shall see later), while the second part of the book was still in the process of being written.

      Moreover, appealing to the Dead Sea scrolls backfires for Christians because they expose variants in the text. The biggest one is regarding the identity of the king of Babylon who went insane. I wrote in my article:

      “he Dead Sea Scrolls provide historical evidence that the Book of Daniel enjoyed widespread acceptance by Jews as early as the 2nd-century BCE, shortly after it received its final form. However, the Dead Sea Scrolls also provide evidence of a variant version of the story recounted in chapter 4. For among the many manuscripts discovered in the caves of the Dead Sea valley, one particular scroll known as “The Prayer of Nabonidus” shows that it was this king, and not Nebuchadnezzar, who was stricken with a disease “for a period of seven years”.[178] Of course, this in itself does not prove that the historical Nabonidus was actually stricken with a disease and repented of his sins, though there are possible parallels between his sojourn in Arabia (for which we know very little about) and the seven-year period of insanity described in the Bible and “The Prayer of Nabonidus” scroll.[179] However, what we can be almost certain about is that the original story in chapter 4 was not about Nebuchadnezzar, but Nabonidus, regardless of whether the story is historically accurate or not.”

      There are very good reasons to conclude that the last few chapters of Daniel were written around the time of the Seleucid empire. For example, I wrote:

      “Another historical inconsistency in the first chapter is the giving of Babylonian names to Daniel and his companions. As previously mentioned, the names reflected Babylonian culture, and more specifically, the religion of Babylon (see note #25). However, as also previously noted, the names were actually incorrect and “mangled” forms of Babylonian names. This fact naturally raises some logical questions:
      1. Why would the Babylonians have deliberately given such names to Daniel and his companions?
      2. Why would they deliberately insult their gods and religion?
      Since there would have been no reason for the Babylonians to give such insulting names, scholars agree that they are the author’s own invention or a later corruption.[173] In either case, what is more interesting is that the practice of giving foreign names was very common in the later Hellenistic period. As Hammer explains:
      “[t]his practice was very common in the Greek period and encouraged in the Hellenizing policy of the Ptolemies and Seleucids.”[174]
      Thus, the claim that Daniel and his companions were given (corrupted) Babylonian names may actually just be a reflection of the practice of the Greeks, a practice which was naturally detested by the author.”

      Liked by 1 person

    • True; I did not read every word closely.
      “Looked over”; skimmed; doesn’t mean I read every word; but thanks for pointing out you did refer to Gleason Archer and David Malick’s article.

      It all comes down who believes in the God who sends prophets and the ability of God to send prophets to supernaturally predict the future and write God-breathed Scripture.

      The scholars in the west have freedom to question doctrines like supernatural prophesy and God-breathed written Scripture; but in the Muslim world, there is not there freedom – questioning the Qur’an can be dangerous for scholars there. Big difference.

      Like

    • In the name of Allah the Gracious the Merciful

      KT://Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off (see Isaiah 53:8 for similar concept of being cut off = killed) and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. (verse 26) the sanctuary was destroyed later in 70 AD – verse 27 – “desolations are determined” (prophesied by Jesus around 30 AD in Matthew 24)//

      Again one flawed interpretation, there is no definite article “the” in Daniel 9:25 in original hebrew.

      The word  עַד־מָשִׁ֣יחַ  Ad-mashiakh or “anointed one” is translated as “Messiah” but it should not be in this case since it is not a reference to Messiah but a reference to one who is anointed.  There is no definite article (Hey ~ ה) before the word (משיח ~ Moshiach)

      (Kings are considered anointed as it says in 1 Chronicles 11:3) who was killed during this time. It also refers to the last High priest (priests are anointed as seen in Leviticus 4) and the sacrifices (indicated in Leviticus 8:10-11). All three subjects were considered anointed and were cut off during the final week before the destruction of the second Temple.

      Remember there are two anointed subjects, one after 7 weeks and another after an additional 62 weeks. The first “anointed” individual identified as a prince/leader in Daniel 9:25 is King Cyrus, who came 7 weeks of years after the destruction of Jerusalem. Then from Cyrus’ Decree to rebuild Jerusalem, “it will be built again” for an additional 62 weeks (434 years). But “in troubled times,” Daniel 9:25, meaning under the foreign domination of the subsequent Persian, Greek and Roman rule. The Greek is mentioned in Daniel 11:2 and Roman alluded to in Daniel 1:30 where the word (כתים ~ Kittim) refers to the Roman capital of Constantinople)

      Then in the 69th week (483 years) after the destruction of the first Temple and 1 week (7 years) before the destruction of the second Temple, an anointed one is cut off.

      The fact that there is no definite article indicates that this can refer to several different anointed subjects. King Agrippa the last King of Israel (Kings are considered anointed as it says in 1 Chronicles 11:3) who was killed during this time. It also refers to the last High priest (priests are anointed as seen in Leviticus 4) and the sacrifices (indicated in Leviticus 8:10-11). All three subjects were considered anointed and were cut off during the final week before the destruction of the second Temple.

      Like

    • The word עַד־מָשִׁ֣יחַ Ad-mashiakh or “anointed one” is translated as “Messiah” . . .

      Wrong!
      עַד־מָשִׁ֣יחַ Ad-mashiakh = “until Messiah”
      עד = “until”

      . . . but it should not be in this case since it is not a reference to Messiah but a reference to one who is anointed. There is no definite article (Hey ~ ה) before the word (משיח ~ Moshiach)

      You are correct that there is no definite article there, but that does not mean that it cannot be translated “messiah” or “the Messiah”, since “The Messiah” means “the anointed one”.

      The lack of definite article does not mean necessarily that there are 2 different anointed ones – the context and flow shows that this is the same person – the first is his appearing or beginning of ministry, His anointing at His baptism – anointing of the Holy Spirit coming upon Him in 26 AD, and the second is His being cut off or crucified in 30 AD. (3 and 1/2 years later).

      The context points to the Messiah who would
      1. finish the transgression,
      2. to make an end of sin,
      3. to make atonement for iniquity,

      The first 3 tasks point to the effectiveness and finality of the atonement of Jesus Christ at the cross and His power to forgive sins.

      4. to bring in everlasting righteousness, – points to the true teaching of bringing in the Messiah’s righteousness and character and only He is perfectly righteous ; and people can only become righteous by trusting in the Righteous One – 2 Corinthians 5:21 – “He made Him who knew no sin to be (treated as) sin on our behalf; so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” – justification by faith alone in John, Acts, Galatians and Romans, Ephesians, Philippians 3:9, etc.

      5. to seal up vision and prophecy – points to the finality of the ministry of Jesus and His apostles who wrote the NT Scripture and ending of revelation.
      and
      6. to anoint the most holy (place or person) – points to the holy and pure character of Jesus Himself and His anointing with the Holy Spirit. (see Acts 10:38)

      Those 6 things were only fulfilled by the Messiah (anointed one), Jesus Christ. “the anointed one” in Arabic is Al Masih المسیح

      yes, kings and priests are also called “anointed”; agreed. But context rules.

      But “in troubled times,” Daniel 9:25, meaning under the foreign domination of the subsequent Persian, Greek and Roman rule.

      Interesting that this interpretation agrees that the prophesy extends into the Roman era. Even some of the Jewish interpreters that Faiz quoted extended the prophesy into the Roman times, about Agrippa, etc.

      . . . Roman alluded to in Daniel 1:30 where the word (כתים ~ Kittim) refers to the Roman capital of Constantinople)

      There is no Daniel 1:30.

      Most scholars see the ships of Kittim as ships from Cyprus or other islands or coasts in the Mediterranean Sea west of Israel. I have never seen a source say that this means “Constantinople”. It was called the city of Byzantium then anyway, and only named Constantinople much later – centuries later, after 300s AD.

      Like

    • //Wrong!
      עַד־מָשִׁ֣יחַ Ad-mashiakh = “until Messiah”
      עד = “until”//
      ad” עַד is just a preposition, of course one who knew even basic hebrew know that it means “until, by, to, through” (depending on the context) , we are talking about your skewed translation on the phrase “the messiah”  where the fact there is no such a thing in the hebrew . The correct translation: “an anointed one”  the word is used dozens of times to speak of David, Saul, Solomon and others as “anointed one” .
      //The lack of definite article does not mean necessarily that there are 2 different anointed ones – the context and flow shows that this is the same person – the first is his appearing or beginning of ministry, His anointing at His baptism – anointing of the Holy Spirit coming upon Him in 26 AD, and the second is His being cut off or crucified in 30 AD. (3 and 1/2 years later).//
      Wrong!
      They are obviously two distinct time frames, not one time frame. If it were 69 the Hebrew would say  shishim we tesha’ ”69″ (sixty + nine). But Daniel 9 says sabuim sebah we sabuim shishim ”7 and 62″ weeks  . This should translate as seven years and sixty-two years). It is wrong if anyone says  that Daniel 9 seem to talk about only one messiah when it really speaks of two messiahs / anointed ones  two separate time frames and two separate anointed ones.
      Your intellectually dishonest attempt to put “the” to messiah is to avoid the fact that “the 62 weeks” are completely separate from the first 7, because Daniel 9 does not say “after the 69 weeks,” but  וְאַחֲרֵ֤י הַשָּׁבֻעִים֙ שִׁשִּׁ֣ים וּשְׁנַ֔יִם  Ve’acharei hashavu’im shishim ushenayim meaning “after THE 62 weeks” !
      Daniel 9:24-26 context was 7 + 62  years from 538 BC with Cyrus’ decree and ended with the deposition of the high priest Onias III in 175 BC and his assassination in 172. The end of Babylonian domination, the Jews would also return to Jerusalem from the Babylonian exile.  The Jewish Jerusalem Temple known as the “Holy of Holies,” (קדשים קדש – Kodesh Kedoshim). It is another intellectual dishonesty to say it is a person Jesus rather than a place.
      So Daniel 9:24-26 is about prophetic word (debar) Daniel received a vision to restore and rebuild Jerusalem (starting from its destruction) until an anointed Prince (Cyrus) will be seven weeks (49 years) and then for 62 weeks (434 years) it will be rebuilt in troubled times through Persian, Greek and Roman domination. The 7+62 weeks  (483 years from the destruction of the first Temple) an anointed one (sacrifices, last Jewish priest and king) will be cut off and will be no more, and lastly (in the 70th week 490 years from the destruction of the first Temple).
      the people of the prince (Romans) who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.

      Liked by 1 person

    • “True; I did not read every word closely.
      “Looked over”; skimmed; doesn’t mean I read every word; but thanks for pointing out you did refer to Gleason Archer and David Malick’s article.

      It all comes down who believes in the God who sends prophets and the ability of God to send prophets to supernaturally predict the future and write God-breathed Scripture.

      The scholars in the west have freedom to question doctrines like supernatural prophesy and God-breathed written Scripture; but in the Muslim world, there is not there freedom – questioning the Qur’an can be dangerous for scholars there. Big difference.”

      Your red herrings aside, you have not answered my points against the early authorship of Daniel. The “evidence” provided by Malick and others is extremely weak. The internal evidence shows that the last part of the book was definitely written in the 2nd century BCE. No serious scholar doubts that. Christians base their views mostly on a priori beliefs.

      Like

  40. What sins did Noah confess before he did the burnt offering? where is an olah used for deeds in Noah’s time? God already SAVED Noah from disaster before Noah did any burning of animals? Shouldn’t Noah have done the burning before he embarked on the ark you ritualistic pagan man worshipping temple? Noah BURNED the animals and the smell of burning flesh of animal is a pleasing aroma to yhwh, why would yhwh undo his PLEASING AROMA through a pagan sacrifice in which pagans sacrifice Jesus? that pleasing aroma stopped flooding 2.

    ken, since god created Adam from scratch, he could have created skin from scratch too, right?

    temple,

    http://nojesus4jews.weebly.com/365-prophecies/11-genesis-228the-lamb-of-g-d-promisedjohn-129

    Why are you a liar for a pagan sacrifice?


    One cannot worship God without part of that worship being confession of sin and repentance from sin, and mourning over our sin.”

    where does it indicate in the genesis story that Noah who was saved by DEEDS and Bible clearly says Daniel, Noah and job can save themselves if god brings DISASTER and these three are in it.

    Like

    • A careful reading of the genesis story is that the deeds of bringing those animals together and burning them caused a sweet stink which yhwh inhaled. It is all good deeds over and over again. Noah TREATED god to a feast. it wasn’t the sacrifice it was the BURNING OF ALL THOSE ANIMALS . Noah built a boat = deeds again. Noah obeyed god , Noah trusted god. again, nothing in the story about pagan sacrifice please don’t spoil a happy feast with a crucified jesus.

      Like

  41. brother faiz, few questions. I notice that Noah and Abraham had no temple to do their olah offerings, which makes me wonder if noahide can do an OLAH offering anywhere EVEN TODAY, what do you think bro?

    in Isaiah yhwh says he is sick and tired of burnt offerings, was this symbolic for saying he was sick and tired of sacrificed man god?

    Like

    • It appears that way. The Israelites could only offer the sacrifices in the temple, but there was no such stipulation for non-Israelites. However, it does not appear that the laws required any type of “offering” from non-Israelites anyway. These are the 7 laws:

      http://www.chabad.org/therebbe/article_cdo/aid/62221/jewish/Universal-Morality.htm

      1
      Acknowledge that there is only one G‑d who is Infinite and Supreme above all things. Do not replace that Supreme Being with finite idols, be it yourself, or other beings. This command includes such acts as prayer, study and meditation.

      2
      Respect the Creator. As frustrated and angry as you may be, do not vent it by cursing your Maker.

      3
      Respect human life. Every human being is an entire world. To save a life is to save that entire world. To destroy a life is to destroy an entire world. To help others live is a corollary of this principle.

      4
      Respect the institution of marriage. Marriage is a most Divine act. The marriage of a man and a woman is a reflection of the oneness of G‑d and His creation. Disloyalty in marriage is an assault on that oneness.

      5
      Respect the rights and property of others. Be honest in all your business dealings. By relying on G‑d rather than on our own conniving, we express our trust in Him as the Provider of Life.

      6
      Respect G‑d’s creatures. At first, Man was forbidden to consume meat. After the Great Flood, he was permitted – but with a warning: Do not cause unnecessary suffering to any creature.

      7
      Maintain justice. Justice is G‑d’s business, but we are given the charge to lay down necessary laws and enforce them whenever we can. When we right the wrongs of society, we are acting as partners in the act of sustaining the creation.

      Like

  42. Yes, the burnt offering was a sin offering:

    Job 1 v 4 And his sons went and feasted in their houses, every one his day; and sent and called for their three sisters to eat and to drink with them. 5 And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Good one, Erasmus. Yes, Job 1:4.

      The Muslims’ arguments are defeated.

      Like

    • Good one, Erasmus. Yes, Job 1:5.

      The Muslims’ arguments are defeated.

      Like

    • oh my goodness you dumb asses THERE ARE NO DEEDS their , just THOUGHTS. Did jebus die for THOUGHTS? now tell me, if the burnt offerings in Noah’s time had anything to do with deeds or thoughts since yhwh ELECTED Noah and Noah saved himself from doom. Noah embarked on boat without performing any ritual of burnt offering. Noah and Abraham were already declared righteous , so their righteous DEED already cleared them . the burnt offerings in NOAH and Abraham case clearly has no connection with sin.

      Like

    • maybe , MAYBE not. BUT Noah, Abraham and job ALREADY DECLARED RIGHTEOUS. Did Noah AND ABRAHAM curse god in their thoughts?
      did jebus DIE for your “maybe” thoughts and not deeds? Did job perform olah for HIS thoughts?

      Like

    • LOL, we can see the deception of these apologists. Earlier, Ignoramus claimed that the Ninevites’ repentance without any offerings was accepted by God because there was no “covenant” between them. Yet now, he claims that Job made “burnt offerings”! But since when did Job’s people have a covenant with God? Job was not an Israelite. So why was he making burnt offerings?

      Also, in the same chapter that Ignoramus quoted, Job himself is described as a “perfect and upright man”, which further refutes Ignoramus’ earlier contention that to be “perfect” did not mean sinless:

      “And the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?”

      So, here we have testimony from God Himself that Job was “perfect and upright” (i.e. sinless)!

      Like

    • Good one heathcliff.

      The Christians’ arguments are defeated.

      Like

    • Further proof of the lies these Christians perpetuate, even to the point of misquoting their own scripture:

      The Tanakh makes a distinction between a “burnt offering” and a “sin offering”. Let’s look at Ezekiel 45:

      “And it shall be the prince’s part to give burnt offerings, and meat offerings, and drink offerings, in the feasts, and in the new moons, and in the sabbaths, in all solemnities of the house of Israel: he shall prepare the sin offering, and the meat offering, and the burnt offering, and the peace offerings, to make reconciliation for the house of Israel” (Ezekiel 45:17).

      Here we see different types of “offerings”: sin offering, meat offering, burnt offering and peace offering. Moreover, the sin offering was to be made on the first day of the first month (verse 18), whereas the burnt offering was to be made during the seven days of the passover feast (verse 23).

      We can also look at Leviticus 1-4, where the different types of offerings are differentiated. These are the facts which the Christians are either ignorant of or deliberately ignore in order to promote their pagan views on atonement.

      Liked by 1 person

  43. There was once a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job. That man was blameless and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil. 2 There were born to him seven sons and three daughters. 3 He had seven thousand sheep, three thousand camels, five hundred yoke of oxen, five hundred donkeys, and very many servants; so that this man was the greatest of all the people of the east. 4 His sons used to go and hold feasts in one another’s houses in turn; and they would send and invite their three sisters to eat and drink with them. 5 And when the feast days had run their course, Job would send and sanctify them, and he would rise early in the morning and offer burnt offerings according to the number of them all; for Job said, “It may be that my children have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts.” This is what Job always did.

    ////

    but in Noah , Abraham and job case THEY ARE ALREADY DECLARED RIGHTEOUS. SO their thought and deed has already cleared them because they are righteous. And here it is “perhaps” so this does not mean “perhaps ” if you didn’t curse god , you SHOULDNT give olah offering. what about olah for thanking god or gratitude offering.

    Did job offer for himself? His righteousness would have atoned for him. Deeds atone in Torah.
    Do all olah offerings need to be FOR THOUGHTS? no.

    Like

  44. Twice it is mentioned GOD WILL PROVIDE
    GOd will provide when his son inquired
    And the place gets named GOd will provide.
    Job specifically mentions thought of CURSING GOD,yet Abraham is GIFTED with a burnt offering by WHOM? Who provided it?

    Like

  45. “Noah and Abraham were already declared righteous , so their righteous DEED already cleared them . the burnt offerings in NOAH and Abraham case clearly has no connection with sin.

    Like

    mr.heathcliff
    July 24, 2017 • 8:11 pm
    maybe , MAYBE not. BUT Noah, Abraham and job ALREADY DECLARED RIGHTEOUS. Did Noah AND ABRAHAM curse god in their thoughts?
    did jebus DIE for your “maybe” thoughts and not deeds? Did job perform olah for HIS thoughts?”

    I reply,

    Sin is a condition as well as a specific act so the burnt offering doesn’t have to be mentioned in connection with a particular sin for it to be associated with sin. You have no text to give any evidence for any alternative meaning but Job tells us why he is offering the burnt offering, namely for the possible sins of his children. This is the only place where the purpose of the offering is explained, as far as I know, and it contradicts your explanation which has no biblical text to support it.

    You can’t use the same offering to show that you are perfect and a sinner. It has to be one or the other.

    You only have your biased agenda arguing from silence to force the offering to have a different connotation than sin.

    Of course thoughts can be sinful. How does the sinful act begin if not with the thought? There are plenty of scriptures to show this. God condemns our thoughts.

    Gen 6 v 5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

    Noah found GRACE: Gen 6 v 8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. If he was sinless he would have no need of grace.

    Abraham and Job both sinned as we are explicitly told in the bible. Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness. His works did not save him, his faith did.

    Gen 15 v 6And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

    If Job lived before the tabernacle then he could have offered burnt offerings. After that time it was restricted to the tribe of Levi and the sons of Aaron.

    Tell me where the word sinless occurs in the OT? No one could enter the holy of holies except the high priest once a year to make atonement for the people.

    This shows that all men are sinners.

    Like

  46. Ken said:

    ” Constable: “1. Most of
    the church fathers and the older orthodox interpreters find prophesied here
    the appearance of Christ in the flesh, His death, and the destruction of
    Jerusalem by the Romans.” (page 121-122, Notes on Daniel, Constable.)

    The first view is the view I take on Daniel. Constable lists 3: 1. the one above, 2. the liberal view, and 3. an eschatological one about Israel and the ends times (Constable’s view)

    Except for his eschatological scheme (a large gap between the 69th and 70th week, of “the church age”, and that the last period of seven years is a seven year tribulation for Israel – I don’t buy into that Pre-tribulational / Israel restored future to us scheme) he is mostly right on most other matters about Daniel.

    http://www.soniclight.com/constable/notes/pdf/daniel.pdf

    This nonsense is easily refuted by the commentary of Rashi, as I wrote in my article:

    ” First of all, the “Anointed One” of Daniel 9:25 was identified by Rashi as Cyrus the Great, and not the king Messiah, while the “Anointed One” who was to be “put to death” was identified as Agrippa, who was king of Judea as the time of the Roman conquest of Jerusalem in 70 CE.[217] Thus, Rashi was only referring to events he believed were to occur before the coming of the king Messiah, not during his life or after (since the conquest of Jerusalem actually happened after the time of Jesus). The actual reign of the Messiah, according to Rashi, was to occur sometime in the future.[218] Moreover, since we know from the text that the time of the end was to occur very shortly after the second “Anointed One” was to be “put to death”, there is absolutely no possibility of applying this prophecy to Jesus anyway. Also, Rashi claimed that the “abomination that causes desolation” was to remain on the Temple grounds until “the days of the king Messiah”, but it is of course well known that the pagan altar that the Romans set-up after the conquest has long disappeared from history.[219]
    Second, the Christian claim that the “Messiah” would bring “atonement” for sins (based on their flawed reading of Daniel 9:24) is simply a case of interjecting their theology into the text. They assume from the start that the Messiah came to die for humanity’s sins, and then assume that Daniel 9:24 must be referring to this. But when reading Rashi’s commentary, we see nothing about the Messiah “atoning” for humanity’s sins. In fact, he only mentioned the Messiah after the ending of “transgression” and “sin”! As Rashi stated (emphasis ours):
    “…so that Israel should receive their complete retribution in the exile of Titus and his subjugation, in order that their transgressions should terminate, their sins should end, and their iniquities should be expiated, in order to bring upon them eternal righteousness and to anoint upon them (sic) the Holy of Holies: the Ark, the altars, and the holy vessels, which they will bring to them through the king Messiah.”[220]
    We can see that the termination of “transgressions” and the ending of “sins” needed to occur first, after which the reign of the Messiah would begin. We can also see that there is no mention of the Messiah dying for the sins of the “world”, let alone for the sins of the Jews.[221] In fact, the subjugation of the Jews under Titus was supposed to serve as expiation for their sins. In other words, they had to “atone” for their sins by suffering under Roman persecution and exile. Thus, the apologetic claims are foolish and do not warrant serious consideration.”

    Like

  47. Leviticus backs me up:

    Leviticus 1 v f his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD. 4And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering;

    and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.

    Like

    • Ignoramus…another parrot who blindly repeats the same tired arguments and refused to accept the facts. Leviticus and Ezekiel CLEARLY differentiate between a “burnt offering” and a “sin offering”! What don’t you nitwits get about that?

      I think it is telling that none of the apologists here have dealt with the clear differentiation seen in Leviticus and Ezekiel. They simply ignore any evidence which contradicts them. Pathetic…

      Like

  48. All the Israelites need the Passover, including Moses, to avoid being killed by the Angel of Death.

    Heb 11 v 24 By faith MOSES, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter; 25 Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; 26 Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward. 27 By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible.

    28 Through faith he kept the passover, and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the firstborn should touch them.

    Like

    • LOL, so you now have a Christian book speaking for Jews?

      Moses would not have been touched by the angel of death because the first-borns were to be killed. Moses was not the firstborn of his parents. He was the younger brother of Aaron, so it would have been Aaron who would have been killed.

      Your ludicrous claims have been refuted by the evidence in Leviticus and Ezekiel. Grow up and deal with it.

      Like

  49. “Moses would not have been touched by the angel of death because the first-borns were to be killed.”

    They all had to eat the lamb and go inside the house. Not just the firstborn.

    Like

    • If that was the case, then why wasn’t the Pharaoh killed as well? Why only his first-born son? In fact, shouldn’t the ENTIRE land of Egypt have been killed because NONE of them ate any lamb or put any blood on their houses? You’re contradicting your Bible. Heretic!

      Like

  50. “Leviticus and Ezekiel CLEARLY differentiate between a “burnt offering” and a “sin offering”! What don’t you nitwits get about that?”

    So the sin offering by itself is not enough to make atonement for the people. Only proves what I have been saying all along that sin is a condition for which atonement must be made irrespective of whether someone is conscious of specific sins or not.

    Like

    • How desperate are you to avoid admitting that you are wrong about something?

      The fact that the sin offering is different from the burnt offering debunks your appeal to the burnt offerings made by Noah, Job and others. It was NOT a sin offering, nor did they make additional offerings. In fact, Noah’s offering was one of thanksgiving to God (see the Jewish Study Bible, p. 207).

      Like

  51. “If that was the case, then why wasn’t the Pharaoh killed as well? Why only his first-born son? In fact, shouldn’t the ENTIRE land of Egypt have been killed because NONE of them ate any lamb or put any blood on their houses? You’re contradicting your Bible. Heretic!”

    lol, they had clear instructions what they all had to do:

    Exodus 12 v 6 And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening. 7And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein they shall eat it.

    Like

    • Oh Lord, you are such an idiot and you didn’t even answer my question! Why weren’t ALL the Egyptians killed by the angel of death if they did not do any of the things the Israelites did? When the angel of death came, why were the firstborns the only ones killed? Answer the question. You’re embarrassing yourself.

      Liked by 1 person

  52. For those interested, I have finished my latest article which is on the doctrine of original sin. You can read it here:

    http://quranandbible.blogspot.com/2017/07/born-sinner-critical-investigation-of.html

    Liked by 2 people

    • Why don’t you post it here so we can have some fun demolishing it 🙂

      Like

    • Um, because it’s not my blog you moron. It’s not my decision. Why don’t you read it and try your luck so I can have fun embarrassing you, as I will soon embarrass you when I get a chance to responsor to your latest laughable posts? 😉

      Like

    • Well Ignoramus, have you had a chance to read over the article? Looking forward to you trying your luck!

      Like

  53. If the burnt offering was not for sin then it’s purpose would not be to make atonement.

    Leviticus 1 v f his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD. 4And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering;

    and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.

    i.e. atonement for sin in general, enabling an unholy people to approach a holy God.

    The peace offering was a separate thank offering or fellowship offering.

    The sin offering was also a separate offering.

    If your theory was true there would be no need for the burnt offering to be continued but it was.

    That debunks your Islamic scheme to make the burnt offering a thank offering before the time of Moses.

    Like

    • Leviticus 4 states that a sin offering would be made for a sin.

      2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things which ought not to be done, and shall do against any of them:

      3 If the priest that is anointed do sin according to the sin of the people; then let him bring for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto the Lord for a sin offering. […]

      14 When the sin, which they have sinned against it, is known, then the congregation shall offer a young bullock for the sin, and bring him before the tabernacle of the congregation.

      This offering is clearly very different from a burnt offering. It is specifically associated with sinful behavior. For the burnt offering, on the other hand, there is no mention of sinful behavior.

      Thus, the Jews interpreted it as Rashi explains:

      “…we determine that it is accepted only for [failure to perform] a positive commandment [for which the punishment is not expressly stated in the Torah, or [violation of] a negative commandment that is attached to a positive commandment.”

      That debunks your Christian (pagan) scheme to make the burnt offering akin to a sin offering.

      Like

  54. “Why weren’t ALL the Egyptians killed by the angel of death if they did not do any of the things the Israelites did? When the angel of death came, why were the firstborns the only ones killed? Answer the question. You’re embarrassing yourself.”

    The Egyptians could not keep the Passover. It was not for them.

    What silliness. Invariably the last resort of an Islamic apologist.

    Like

    • LOL, Ignoramus doesn’t see how illogical he is. If the first born of the Egyptians were the one to be killed, then the same would apply to the Israelites, if they did not mark their homes with the lamb’s blood.

      “2 For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the Lord.

      13 And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.”

      See? It specifically states that the particular plague that would “smite the land of Egypt” would “passover” the Israelites. What was the plague? The death of the firstborn.

      Your pagan claims are refuted.

      What silliness. Invariably the last resort of a Christian (pagan) apologist. 😉

      Like

  55. ” In fact, Noah’s offering was one of thanksgiving to God (see the Jewish Study Bible, p. 207).”

    In fact the burnt offering is defined by Job. The Jewish Study bible must be wrong.

    Already trolling for scholars Faiz when you have lost the argument?

    Like

    • LOL, already denying credible scholarship in favor of your idiotic assumptions?

      Hmmm, let’s see who is right…credible scholars or our little friend Ignoramus:

      Noah was “blameless” while the world was sinful. God decided to destroy the world but told Noah to build an ark for himself, his family and two of every animal. The flood came and wiped out everyone and everything that was not the ark. Once the flood ended, Noah disembarked and made a burnt offering. Where was the sin?

      So in fact, the burnt offering is defined by Noah. He was the first to make one. The Jewish Study Bible must be right!

      Like

  56. “as I will soon embarrass you when I get a chance to responsor to your latest laughable posts?”

    I guess you must be busy planning your first night raid. Do tell us all about it when the time comes.

    Like

    • Lol, not exactly. Some of us have other responsibilities, like having a job and a life. I’m sure you’re pretty busy worshiping your bloodthirsty and genocidal god. Did you ever figure out that riddle about your KJV? 😉

      Like

    • Can’t answer the riddle, Ignoramus? What does your KJV mean when a woman is “humbled”? Do tell.

      Like

  57. 5 When the days of feasting had completed their cycle, Job would send and consecrate them, rising up early in the morning and offering burnt offerings according to the number of them all; for Job said, “Perhaps my sons have sinned and cursed God in their hearts.” Thus Job did continually.
    Job 1:5

    No one has refuted Job 1:5, demonstrating that burnt offerings also included forgiveness of sins.

    Like

    • Then you need to learn to read because I already refuted this laughable claim. A burnt offering is different from a sin offering. Read your Bible!

      Liked by 2 people

    • But Job 1:5 shows that burnt offerings also included forgiveness of sins before the Mosaic law and distinctions between the offerings in Leviticus chapters 1-7.

      Like

    • Look, if job got forgiveness for future sins based on “maybe” and god forgave even though job was UNSURE, why did the Jews then need to offer sin sacrifices when “unsure sin sacrifices” could do the job? You make your god look like a retard. unless there is no idea of forgiveness in job 1:4-5 ?

      Like

    • The burnt offering here seems to be based on a guess for something unknown in the future. So what offering did job bring for KNOWN offense? Job is unsure in job 1:5 and Jews who are unsure don’t bring sin sacrifice, right?

      Like

    • LOL, you guys are a riot. You get stuck on one particular passage and ignore everything else. Job made a burnt offering on behalf of his sons only in case they had blasphemed God in their thoughts. There is no indication that they actually did that.

      Burnt offerings could be made for various reasons, including thanksgiving, as in Noah’s case and seeking God’s help in battle, as in Samuel’s case (1 Samuel 7).

      Like

  58. “you have no text to give any evidence for any alternative meaning but Job tells us why he is offering the burnt offering, namely for the possible sins of his children. This is the only place where the purpose of the offering is explained, as far as I know, and it contradicts your explanation which has no biblical text to support it.”

    Abraham did a burnt offering after god PROVIDED him with an ANIMAL. if Abraham begged god to save his son, he would need MORE than a burnt offering. If abrahams had thoughts of reluctance like jesus, he may have been reluctant to go through the act.I said Abraham thanked god and I also linked to Sophies article ,she said:

    How do we know that the עֹלָ֖ה / olah was primarily to thank G-d, or for donations and for vows?

    And Hashem said to Moses, saying, Speak to Aharon (Moses’ brother and the first Jewish priest) and to his sons and to all Bnai Yisrael (the Jews, the children of Israel) and say to them: Any man whatsoever from the house of Yisrael, or from the converts among Yisrael, who offers up his sacrifice for any of their vows (or for any of their donations that they may offer up to Hashem as an עֹלָ֖ה / olah offering) to be favorable for you, [it shall be] an unblemished male – from cattle, from sheep, or from goats. Any [animal] that has a blemish, you shall not offer up, for it will not be favorable for you. And if a man offers up a Shelamim (peace) offering to Hashem for declaring a vow or as a donation from cattle or from the flock to be accepted, it shall be unblemished. It shall not have any blemish in it.” (VaYikra / Leviticus 22:17-21)

    Any mention of sin?

    Nope.

    End quote

    To my surprise what I GUESSed ABOUT ABRAHAMS OFFERING had Biblical support and I didn’t even know it.


    You only have your biased agenda arguing from silence to force the offering to have a different connotation than sin.

    A pagan like you knows not the difference between
    Maybe/perhaps/
    And CURSING GOD IS SPECIFICALLY mentioned.why THIS SPECIFIC sin and why would an olah cover such a grave sin? why is a burning done on something one is not even SURE about?

    “Of course thoughts can be sinful. How does the sinful act begin if not with the thought? There are plenty of scriptures to show this. God condemns our thoughts.”

    yes the thought which caused jeesus to tell his god to save him from dying brutal death and his reluctance must have been condemned by god.

    And don’t try to change the topic. We want to know how the burnt offering in the story about Abraham offering his son as a burnt offering implies Abraham did the burning because of his sins.

    “Gen 6 v 5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”

    god also said to USE the heart to give him BURNT offerings , deeds and love. how did maybe /perhaps BECOME ACTUAL DEEDS??? WHAT gen 6:5 got to do with jobs perhaps???

    “Noah found GRACE: Gen 6 v 8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. If he was sinless he would have no need of grace.”

    from burnt offering to grace, wtf is this?

    “Abraham and Job both sinned as we are explicitly told in the bible. Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness. His works did not save him, his faith did.”

    From burnt offering to Abraham’s sin to Noah’s sin wtf is this?

    Now help us here. When Abraham burnt the animal can you show

    1. He doubted god
    2.doubted gods plan

    ALL IN THOUGHT

    ???

    if Abraham was counted righteous by faith, then OLAH offering could not be for any of his “maybe”
    “Perhaps” thoughts

    “Gen 15 v 6And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteuote:

    Avraham didn’t think he would ever have biological children, but when Hashem told him that he would, Avraham believed Him – or as it is written in Tanakh – “He believed IN Hashem”. But in this case it means that Avraham believed Hashem. It doesn’t mean that finally Avraham became a believer in Hashem. Avraham was a believer in Hashem a long time before this. So Hashem’s considering this faith an act of tzedakah wasn’t because all of a sudden Avraham became a “believer”, it was merely because Avraham believed that he would have biological children just like Hashem said he would. Whatever it means, Avraham did an act of tzedakah by believing he would have a child with Sarah. It doesn’t mean that Avraham was considered a tzadik because he was a “believer”. As I’ve said many times, tzadik doesn’t mean “believer”; it includes being a believer but ONLY if it leads to a life of tzedek which is the pursuit of divine justice to all of Hashem’s creatures.

    End quote

    Quote:

    “A tzadik by his faith will live” because he realizes that the foundation of having EMUNAH (faith) is what gives him the strength to serve God, to do His commandments and not to be a rasha (a lawless person).

    The verse doesn’t say Avraham DID tzedkah because He didn’t DO AN ACTION. Hashem merely counted his faith in a specific prophecy AS IF he had done tzedakah. The verse says nothing about being a tzadik, which is a different word than tzedakah (as everybody knows by now because I have defined it at least 20 times already).
    End quote

    Like

  59. “Look, if job got forgiveness for future sins based on “maybe” and god forgave even though job was UNSURE, why did the Jews then need to offer sin sacrifices when “unsure sin sacrifices” could do the job? You make your god look like a retard.”

    Past sins. The only one who looks like a retard is you.

    Job 1 v 5 And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about,

    that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually.

    Job acted as a priest for his family. The “unsure” sin sacrifice would be the Day of Atonement where all sins that did not come to light would be atoned. Otherwise each individual had to react with a sin offering once his sin came to light.

    Like

  60. “And Hashem said to Moses, saying, Speak to Aharon (Moses’ brother and the first Jewish priest) and to his sons and to all Bnai Yisrael (the Jews, the children of Israel) and say to them: Any man whatsoever from the house of Yisrael, or from the converts among Yisrael, who offers up his sacrifice for any of their vows (or for any of their donations that they may offer up to Hashem as an עֹלָ֖ה / olah offering) to be favorable for you, [it shall be] an unblemished male – from cattle, from sheep, or from goats. Any [animal] that has a blemish, you shall not offer up, for it will not be favorable for you. And if a man offers up a Shelamim (peace) offering to Hashem for declaring a vow or as a donation from cattle or from the flock to be accepted, it shall be unblemished. It shall not have any blemish in it.” (VaYikra / Leviticus 22:17-21)
    Any mention of sin?
    Nope.
    End quote”

    The passage is talking about freewill burnt and peace offerings. The sin offering is not a freewill offering.

    Like

    • “Past sins. The only one who looks like a retard is you.”

      so job OFFERS burnt offerings MAYBE because his sons have sinned and cursed god in the past.
      job is talking about things in the PAST. he BURNS meat for things in the past on THINGS he is NOT SURE about.

      now what sacrifice is brought for KNOWN sins in the past ?

      quote :
      The “unsure” sin sacrifice would be the Day of Atonement where all sins that did not come to light would be atoned.
      end quote

      retard, do JEWS bring SACRIFICEs for sins BASED on “perhaps” IN THE past on the day of atonement?
      which verse in torah says that if you are UNSURE you have sinned you NEED to bring a sacrifice?

      Like

    • “The passage is talking about freewill burnt and peace offerings. The sin offering is not a freewill offering.”

      and where is there indication retard that abraham DID “sin offering ” ?
      gods provision is offered to god because god provided it . this is clearly a “thank you” to god.

      Like

  61. “now what sacrifice is brought for KNOWN sins in the past ?”

    To Job it was a case of if the sin had been committed the burn offering was the right response on his part to make atonement for it. This must have been based on God’s instructions.

    You still have no example or evidence of the burnt offering being expressly conceived as a thank offering anywhere in the OT. As such it is an alien concept being forced by on the OT by your religion.

    Like

    • Lol, “if the sin had been committed. ”
      so lets see. The jebus “sacrifice” is prophesied because oldest form of olah offering was to burn it for SINS which one was UNSURE OF in the past LOL
      specifically CURSING god, but the animal was burnt anyway if it was revealed the “sin” wasn’t really a sin .

      In the text, job is doing things not because of god COMMANDING him to , but job wanting to do it because job FEELS “perhaps” lol

      Like

    • Ignoramus said:

      “You still have no example or evidence of the burnt offering being expressly conceived as a thank offering anywhere in the OT. As such it is an alien concept being forced by on the OT by your religion.”

      Hmmm, let’s see if we can meet Ignoramus’ challenge. He has already been refuted since Noah’s offering was clearly an offering of thanksgiving. But, let’s see if there are other examples. Hmmm…let’s see…hmmm…oh what about:

      “2 And Hezekiah appointed the courses of the priests and the Levites after their courses, every man according to his service, the priests and Levites for burnt offerings and for peace offerings, to minister, and to give thanks, and to praise in the gates of the tents of the Lord.”

      Awkward!

      Like

  62. “and where is there indication retard that abraham DID “sin offering ” ?
    gods provision is offered to god because god provided it . this is clearly a “thank you” to god.”

    A thank offering is something that you freely give from your own abundance. A thank offering has no element of substitution.The whole scenario is much more complicated than a simple thank offering. It is prophetical in nature showing the great substitutionary atonement that will take place in the future.

    Like

    • “A thank offering is something that you freely give from your own abundance”

      Yes, Noah gave freely from what he took on the boat.

      Noah had abundance of animals on board.

      It was clearly a thank you offering which yhwh inhaled.

      “. A thank offering has no element of substitution.”

      Instead of the human giving thanks with his flesh, he gives an animal as an offering instead. Abraham’s son was saved and Abraham gave thanks via a olah offering. Gods provision was not a human pagan sacrifice in which the human begs his god to be saved. THERE is no christological human lamb in gods provision.

      “e whole scenario is much more complicated than a simple thank offering. It is prophetical in nature showing the great substitutionary atonement that will take place in the future.”

      The bit where your pagan god begs to be saved?
      did jesus REPENT for that thought and sacrificed himself for his own sinful thought in wanting to be saved from gods wrath? Not much of a “sacrificial lamb” right?
      No wonder john cleared up the reluctant mangod mess.

      Like

  63. And we must remember Abraham had no idea of sacrificed pagan begging god. He trusted in God, not the sacrificed animal. Abraham wasn’t a christian animal worshipper. Abraham trusted that God will provide, not the thing provided.

    Like

  64. “Job acted as a priest for his family. The “unsure” sin sacrifice would be the Day of Atonement where all sins that did not come to light would be atoned. Otherwise each individual had to react with a sin offering once his sin came to light.”

    “ALL SINS that did not come to light…”
    ….would be atoned”
    HOW?

    Like

  65. Abraham gets rewarded not only with an animal but ,

    The angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time from heaven, 16 and said, “By myself I have sworn, says the Lord: Because you have done this, and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will indeed bless you, and I will make your offspring as numerous as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of their enemies, 18 and by your offspring shall all the nations of the earth gain blessing for themselves, because you have obeyed my voice.” 19 So Abraham returned to his young men, and they arose and went together to Beer-sheba; and Abraham lived at Beer-sheba.

    it is quite clear that Abraham deed of bringing his son and giving it to yhwh was loyalty test. The animal was clearly UNIMPORTANT in the genesis story. Notice how it gets “lost in fog”?

    That Abraham did not with hold his son in heart, action and mind , GOd will reward by blessing . the elevatory offer was not brought to attention, but abrahams deed/works/acts/ were brought to attention

    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: