Obviously someone end up missing the whole point of prophet Abraham (peace be upon him) story completely…
Categories: Bible, Christianity, Islam, Quran
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Blogging Theology 
“Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian, but he was one inclining toward truth, a Muslim [submitting to Allah]. And he was not of the polytheists.” – Surah 3:67
LikeLiked by 3 people
Correct me if I’m wrong, but even Jews don’t believe in blood sacrifice for any and all sin. They have teshuvah just as we have tawbah. I was given to the understanding that blood sacrifice was a kaffarah of sorts for a specific enormity.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You are correct, blood is one method there are others, such as the grain offering for the poor (Leviticus 5:10-12). And one think is clear in the jewish bible that you are not supposed to offer human blood under any circumstances, or to offer sacrifices outside of the Temple.
When Israel passed their children through the fire to Molech, they were doing child sacrifice. God says he detests human sacrifice.
The whole point of the Akedah was that God was testing Abraham, but not making him go through with sacrificing his son because God detests human sacrifice.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The day of atonements (yom kipperim) in Leviticus 16 covers all the sins of past year, and in next chapter Leviticus 17:11, “blood . . to make atonement for your souls” is where the NT believing Jews understood and quoted from in Hebrews 9:22.
LikeLike
Saul of Tarsus was confused, Leviticus 16 were communal, not individual acts of atonement, Yom Kippur atones whether one repents or one does not repent. It isn’t the sacrifices which atone on Yom Kippur rather t is the day itself which atones. Besides there was no sacrifice on Yom Kippur, the goat that was not sacrificed rather it was sent ALIVE into the wilderness.
…and Leviticus 17 tells the jews how, when and where to slaughter kosher animals as well as a prohibition against eating the blood of kosher animals not about blood atonement.
LikeLike
The day of atonements ( Yom Kipperim ) in Leviticus 16 covers all sins of the past year (so you are wrong), and in the next chapter, Leviticus 17:11, “blood . . . to make atonement for your souls” is where the NT believing Jews understood and quoted from in Hebrews 9:22.
Both the slaughtered goat and the scape-goat (goat of escaping/releasing into the wilderness) symbolized 2 aspects of atonement – all the sins of Israel were confessed onto the goat. Isaiah 53 is a prophesy of the Messiah / suffering servant – and the idea of carrying/bearing sins there is from the scapegoat and the substitution and slaughter is clear. Daniel 9:24-27 applies the word “Messiah” to the one who will come after 483 years and be killed (see also Isaiah 53:8, which ties the Messiah to the suffering servant, and Jesus also said He is that suffering servant in Mark 10:45 / Matthew 20:28.
Also, Abraham said, “God will supply the lamb” in Genesis 22.
God supplied a ram there as a substitute.
The Qur’an affirms this in Surah 37:107 – “We have ransomed him with a mighty sacrifice”
John the baptist said that Jesus the Messiah / the Christ / Al Masih is the fulfillment of that prophesy in Genesis 22 – “Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” John 1:29
Jesus Al Masih is the lamb who takes away God’s wrath against sin. (fulfillment of the passover lamb of Exodus 12)
LikeLike
//The day of atonements ( Yom Kipperim ) in Leviticus 16 covers all sins of the past year (so you are wrong), and in the next chapter, Leviticus 17:11, “blood . . . to make atonement for your souls” is where the NT believing Jews understood and quoted from in Hebrews 9:22.//
Leviticus 16 were communal, not individual, acts of atonement. The bullock’s blood sprinkled on the Ark-cover constituted the rite of expiation for the High Priest and the priestly order, whereas the goat’s blood sprinkled on the Ark-cover was a sin-offering, i.e., to atone for unintentional sins (Leviticus 16:14-15). Leviticus 16:16-19 deals with the cleansing of the Sanctuary from its defilement by the various sins of the people who entered it. So, no, this was not the process for everyone to receive atonement for all their sins.
You can not isolate Leviticus out of context, Leviticus 17 is a chapter like a technical manual of how, when and where to slaughter kosher animals (Jesus (pbuh) was NOT an animal btw) v11 is a completion of an idea which begin in v10 – do not eat the blood of kosher animals thus v11 is the reason for it because as in Leviticus 17:11, the life of the flesh is in blood which simply means that it is blood (oxygenated and nutrients, flowing through it) that keeps us alive. But Leviticus 17:11 must not be read by itself – it is part of a passage which says that Jews are not to eat (drink) the blood of kosher animals (the only animals Jews may eat). They are forbidden from eating blood – and this message from Leviticus 17 is repeated in many other passages. Eating blood is abhorrent to God like in Christian communion.
Again Leviticus 17:11 are dietary prohibition for the Jews TO EAT BLOOD you must include the whole Leviticus 17 into context.
Leviticus 3:17
Leviticus 7:26
Leviticus 7:27
Leviticus 17:10-11
Leviticus 17:12
Leviticus 17:13
Leviticus 17:14
So Leviticus 17:10-11 tells us that the life force is in the blood, and that the blood of a kosher animal must either be thrown into the dirt (Leviticus 17:13) or placed upon the altar as part of a kosher sacrifice.
Human blood is NEVER for a sacrifice – the spilling of human blood is also abhorrent to God —> Numbers 35:33;
You seems as confused as Paul of Tarsus in mishandling the passages in the hebrew bible.
//Both the slaughtered goat and the scape-goat (goat of escaping/releasing into the wilderness) symbolized 2 aspects of atonement – all the sins of Israel were confessed onto the goat.//
So Jesus is liken to a qorbanot goat? really?? Jesus is a human being, and the hebrew bible strongly condemns and forbids human sacrifice. over a dozen times.
The actual meaning and significance of the goat is a rejection of idolatry because days prior to the Exodus, the Israelites were instructed to set aside a goat that they would eat on the evening prior to leaving Egypt (Exodus 12:3-6) as a symbol defiance because the Egyptians made an idol out of goat (Exodus 8:26), so the slaughtering of the goat was a renunciation of idolatry and to worship God alone, a rejection of the deification of any created being.
So you are wrong, Isa Al Masih Alayhi salaam is not a goat
LikeLiked by 5 people
omg not again
LikeLiked by 1 person
All the sacrifices in the OT pointed to the Messiah Jesus, Isa Al Masih. عیسی المسیح
Leviticus 16 were communal, not individual, acts of atonement.
It is both; just because there is a community aspect to this does not mean it is not for individual sins – the emphasis in the text is the repetition of “all their sins” and “all their iniquities”. That is is done once a year for the community as a whole does not negate individual sins, since it is the individual sins that make the whole.
He shall make atonement for the holy place, because of the impurities of the sons of Israel and because of their transgressions in regard to all their sins; and thus he shall do for the tent of meeting which abides with them in the midst of their impurities. Leviticus 16:16
20 “When he finishes atoning for the holy place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall offer the live goat. 21 Then Aaron shall lay both of his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the sons of Israel and all their transgressions in regard to all their sins; and he shall lay them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who stands in readiness.
22 The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a solitary land; and he shall release the goat in the wilderness.
the emphasis of the phrases “all their iniquities” and “all their sins” is about all the individual sins of Israel. The text does not say “one sin of being a rebellious nations as a whole” or “their sin as a whole”.
So, it is you who are confused, not Saul of Tarsus, who was a Pharisee and an expert in the Mosaic law. (Philippians 3:4-6; Galatians 1:13-14)
13 For you have heard of my former manner of life in Judaism, how I used to persecute the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it; 14 and I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my countrymen, being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions.
Galatians 1:13-14
4 although I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more: 5 circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; 6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.
Philippians 3:4-6
The human writer of the book of Hebrews, a Jewish Christian, probably Barnabas, the fellow missionary-apostle with Paul in his early travels, (Acts 14:4; 14:14 – where Barnabas is also called an apostle (see Barnabas background in Acts 4:36, Levite, meaning of his name, and allusion to him in Hebrews 13:22) who knew the law deeply, much deeper than you, is right; and agrees with Paul, John (John 1:29; Revelation 1:5; 5:9; 7:9, 7:14) and Peter ( 1 Peter 1:18-19; 2:24; 3:18-19).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Leviticus 16:16 is speaking of a specific sacrifice made for unintentional defilement of the Temple . You seem to skip over the word “unclean.”
Ve-chipper al-hakkodesh, mittum’ot benei yisra’el, u-mippish’eihem lechol-chattotam (חַטֹּאתָ֑ם); ve-chen ya’aseh le’ohel mo’ed, hashochen ittam, be-toch tum’otam
When the Torah says לְכָלחַטֹּאתָם chattotam (from חַטָּאַת chattat) it means an unintentional sins. See Jewish commentator Rashi for that particular verse:
Likewise the priest sacrificed a bull for himself and his own household for the same reason:
The priestly and communal sin sacrifices atoned for people who had entered the Temple in a state of ritual impurity (uncleanness) — not for “all” sins let alone for great sins.
LikeLike
whereas the goat’s blood sprinkled on the Ark-cover was a sin-offering, i.e., to atone for unintentional sins (Leviticus 16:14-15).
the text of Leviticus 16:14-15 does NOT say unintentional sins.
So, you are really confused on that; and just wrong.
Furthermore, you left out verse 16, which is a continuation of verses 14-15, which clearly says, “all their sins”
it is you who are isolating and taking out of context
LikeLiked by 1 person
You can not isolate Leviticus out of context, Leviticus 17 is a chapter like a technical manual of how, when and where to slaughter kosher animals (Jesus (pbuh) was NOT an animal btw) v11 is a completion of an idea which begin in v10 – do not eat the blood of kosher animals . . .
I am not isolating out of context; rather you are; because you are separating the argument about why it is prohibited to eat blood, and because chapter 17 is a continuation of the teaching of chapter 16.
Yes, I know chapter 17 is about the laws of kosher foods and forbidding the Jews from eating blood, etc. I know that.
11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls;
for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.’
Leviticus 17:11
the reason why blood is forbidden is because “they operated on the principle of substitution, i.e., on the principle of “life for life”. ” (Michael L. Brown, Answering Jewish Objections, Volume 2, Theological Objections, page 107)
“Thus Oxford professor Geza Vermes (whom Paul Williams has used a lot over the years at his three blogs), one of the foremost Jewish scholars of the Dead Sea Scrolls, state that “according to Jewish theology, there can be no expiation (forgiveness of sins, atonement) without the shedding of blood: ‘en kapparah ‘ella’ bedam” (ibid, page 109, Brown cited Vermes work, “Redemption and Genesis xxii: The Binding of Isaac and the Sacrifice of Jesus”.
In the footnote that Brown provides, he adds this comment by Vermes, “Vermes adds, “the antiquity of this Talmudic rule is attested by Hebrews 9:22, “without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness.”
So here is a non-Christian modern Jews admitting that atonement by blood is a very ancient Jewish understanding – antiquity, and that it is a Talmudic rule, and that Hebrews 9:22 is a correct interpretation of Leviticus 17:11 and the Talmudic traditions.
LikeLike
When Leviticus 17:11 say that the life of the flesh is in blood it simply means that it is blood (oxygenated and nutrients, flowing through it) that keeps us alive.
You can not cherry pick Leviticus 17:11 -re dietary prohibition for the Jews TO EAT BLOOD you must include the whole Leviticus 17 into context. They are forbidden from eating blood – and this message from Leviticus 17 is repeated in many other passages because Eating blood is abhorrent to God.
LikeLike
The actual meaning and significance of the goat is a rejection of idolatry because days prior to the Exodus, the Israelites were instructed to set aside a goat that they would eat on the evening prior to leaving Egypt (Exodus 12:3-6) as a symbol defiance because the Egyptians made an idol out of goat (Exodus 8:26),
There is nothing about sacrificing a goat in Exodus 8:26, rather, again, if you would read context in verses around it, verses 25 and 27 tells us the issue is about going outside of the land of Egypt on a three days journey outside of the territory that Pharaoh wanted them to stay in, so that he could keep them as slaves, etc.
So, it is you who have butchered the context and meaning again.
LikeLike
So it is clear that Bnei Yisrael was instructed a goat as a symbolic act of defiance because the Egyptians make an idol of the goat (worshipped them) Exo 8:26
Hence the slaughtering of the goat and the marking of its blood on jewish doorposts was a brave protest against the prevailing idolatrous beliefs of the egyptians over a deification of any created being.
LikeLike
“The Egyptians, and other nations of antiquity, worshipped goats as gods. Not only was there a celebrated temple in Thmuis, the capital of the Mendesian Nomos in Lower Egypt, dedicated to the goat-image Pan, whom they called Mendes, and worshipped as the oracle” -Ellicotts bible commentary
Now you repeat the same mistake by exalting a goat as if a symbol of God…
LikeLike
Isa Al Masih Alayhi salaam is not a goat
I never wrote that Jesus Al Masih is literally a goat. (or lamb or ram or sheep)
Rather, the substitutionary sacrifice of Genesis 22 (and Surah 37:107) points to the Messiah to come in the future, as proved by John 1:29; Revelation 5:9; 7:9, 14 – as symbols of His final substitutionary sacrifice.
and the sacrifice of the lambs and putting the blood on the doorposts to turn away the wrath of God in Exodus 12 are symbols, prophesies, foreshadowings, of the future Messiah, Jesus.
The Levitical laws of atonement by blood sacrifice (Leviticus 1-7), the day of atonement (Lev. 16-17) and the Isaiah 52:13-15 to Isaiah 53:1-12 and Daniel 9:24-27 passages are all SYMBOLS, prophesies, and foreshadowings of the future Human Jesus Christ (who is also God by nature) who would voluntarily give His life as a ransom for many.
LikeLike
Burhanuddin1 wrote:
omg not again!
Hee Hee
LikeLike
missing the point
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lol
LikeLike
This is not a criticism, just trying to help you with the English.
Obviously someone ended up missing the whole point of prophet Abraham (peace be upon him) story completely…
or
Obviously someone ends up missing the whole point of prophet Abraham (peace be upon him) story completely…
and
“Love God more than anything else in our lives”
or
“Love God more than anything else in one’s life.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
You are correct, thanks for pointing this out
LikeLike
When the Torah says לְכָלחַטֹּאתָם chattotam (from חַטָּאַת chattat) it means an unintentional sins.
No it does not. It is literally, “according to all of their sins / transgressions”
ל = to, also cognate with the Arabic الی
כל = all – cognate with the Arabic and Farsi, کل
חטאת = sins – cognate with the Arabic and Farsi, خطا
The verse means “in regard to” or “according to all their sins”. (it includes all unintentional sins also, but it does not mean only unintentional sins; it means all of them.)
If the author meant to say “unintentional”, he would have used that specific word,
שגגה (Shagagah)
which he does use many times in the book of Leviticus:
Leviticus 4:2
4:22
4:27
5:15
22:14
You were grasping at air on that one.
LikeLike
No, why is it then the kohen sacrificed a bull for himself and his own household if the goat was meat to atone for all sins?? because the goat was only to atone for those who, in a state of uncleanness, willfully entered the Temple. You missed the point.
LikeLike
Because in order to enter the holy place, the priest (kohen כהנ) had to first make atonement for himself and his own household in order to be clean and THEN make atonement for the rest of the people of Israel. It is you who missed the point.
Again, there is a specific word for “unintentional” and it is not used in Leviticus 16.
You are welcome on the English stuff.
LikeLike
Nowhere it says so that the bull was meant in order for the kohen gadol and other priests to be clean before making sacrifice. You are making your own interpretation.
So the fact that there were BULL which was offered for the kohen gadol and all the other priests (verses 3, 6, 11) and two GOATS were offered for the nation (verses 5, 7-10, 15) it can not be for all sins. And also the fact that one of the goat was sent alive into the desert it COULD NOT be called a blood sacrifice. The primary parts of the ritual were symbolically the confession and sending the sin away.
LikeLike
When Leviticus 17:11 say that the life of the flesh is in blood it simply means that it is blood (oxygenated and nutrients, flowing through it) that keeps us alive.
Yes, blood gives us life – oxygen, nutrients, etc. – the penalty for sin is death. “the soul that sins shall die” Ezekiel 18:4; 18:20; Romans 6:23
The sacrifice in the place of the guilty human was a substitute, a trade off, a ransom (even Qur’an Surah 37:107 agreed that it was a substitutionary ransom.)
As I said before, it is the principle of life for life. If someone murders someone, the penalty is their life. (execution by death – the shedding of blood).
Jesus, like a lamb (Exodus 12), like the substitutionaly ram adn lamb (Genesis 22), like sheep (Leviticus 1-7; Isaiah 53); like both goats in Lev. 16 (Isaiah 53, Mark 10:45) – took our place, shed His own blood, and ransomed us from sin; and atoned for sins.
You can not cherry pick Leviticus 17:11 -re dietary prohibition for the Jews TO EAT BLOOD you must include the whole Leviticus 17 into context. They are forbidden from eating blood – and this message from Leviticus 17 is repeated in many other passages because Eating blood is abhorrent to God.
I did not take it out of context; Leviticus 17:11 is explaining chapter 16. “for” = because. It is explaining why they should not eat blood – because pagans thought that by eating another’s blood, they got the power/life/life-force of that animal or person. In the sacrificial system, the blood must be shed and drained (kosher), so that no pagan idea is communicated and the idea of God is that the penalty for sin was paid – God’s wrath (violence, sword, knife) fell upon the sacrificial victim to communicate God’s wrath against sin.
LikeLike
Your obsession with blood revenge sounds like you are a follower of paganism than a believer of a Merciful God.
Thats not what leviticus teaches..
LikeLiked by 3 people
“The sacrifice in the place of the guilty human was a substitute, a trade off, a ransom (even Qur’an Surah 37:107 agreed that it was a substitutionary ransom.)”
This is just a Pauline reading for the text. The ram was a reward for Abraham and his son by which Allah عزوجل substituted that son. Allah has all wisdom to teach Abraham by that way and to become a path for us after him. That story has nothing to do with your nonsense belief about the “blood” of God nor the forgiveness sins.
Can you read this text by the same lens you have read the Qur’anic text through?
“The wicked is a((( ransom))) for the righteous, and the traitor for the upright”
Proverbs 21:18
LikeLike
I have no idea how satan plays with the christian mind. The idea of atonement that christians have is very absurd, and it doesn’t make any sense.
I mean christians have created a theological a problem from out of the blue and without any basis (i.e. in this case the problem is sins cannot be forgiven without blood), then after that they’ve created nonsense solution to solve it (i.e. the solution is God himself has to die so sins can be forgiven), while their’s no a theological problem in the first place, and even if it’s there, the solution cannot be the death of God!
We cannot imagine how distorted this doctrine is for their souls and their hearts! Don’t ask about the serious implications for this corrupted doctrine because they are out of limit.
Seriously christians, don’t you think God has given brains for a reason? Start using your brains!
Ken said
“All the sacrifices in the OT pointed to the Messiah Jesus, Isa Al Masih. عیسی المسیح”
This is not the case even in your dreams. You just need to be truthful with yourself. The nonsense preaching has damaged your mind, christians!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gentile Christianity was forced to invent the doctrine of atonement, in order to justify why they had taken the human Prophet Jesus and exalted him (after his death) up to the status of a Deity so that they could continue worshipping a Greco-Roman Man God, just as they had done in their prior pagan religion. In order to do this they first had to reinterpret the OT story of Abraham and the sacrifice, and invent the doctrine of Original Sin which provides the false theological reason for the Crucifixion of Jesus – to deliver man from sin.
All of this is unnecessary……….unless you want a poor theological excuse to worship a specific MAN instead of the GOD who created man.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Your obsession with blood revenge sounds like you are a follower of paganism than a believer of a Merciful God.
Thats not what leviticus teaches..
God’s law is:
“In the day you eat of it, you shall surely die”
Genesis 2:16-17
Genesis 5 – “and so and so died”
All humans are going to die.
“The soul that sins shall die”
Ezekiel 18:4; 18:20
“The wages of sin is death”
Romans 6:23
Hell is God’s justice.
Do you deny that hell is God’s justice?
LikeLike
natural born bible thumper
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken Temple
If God has hell to punish the wicked, He does not have to die- which He cannot because He is immortal according to the Bible.
The soul that sins is the soul that dies. So Jesus cannot die for the soul that sins. Do you get it? It is only sincere repentance and God Mercy that is key here, not blood.
LikeLike
Those are no instruction for blood revenge in the verses you cited. You probably get the idea from Cherokee Indian code of conduct instead of God’s law.
God Law tells us :
“To do righteousness and justice is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice.” (Proverbs 21:3).
LikeLike
Please do not put down Cherokee. They had enough suffering from the likes of Mr. Temple
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken: “The sacrifice in the place of the guilty human was a substitute, a trade off, a ransom (even Qur’an Surah 37:107 agreed that it was a substitutionary ransom.)”
Abdullah1423:
This is just a Pauline reading for the text. The ram was a reward for Abraham and his son by which Allah عزوجل substituted that son.
Jesus Al Masih taught the truth of His substitutionary atonement for sin in Mark 10:45 and Matthew 20:28 and Mark 14:24 and Matthew 26:28.
The Arabic words for ransom فدای and فدیه and sacrifice / slaughter ذبح are not about reward, rather substitutionary atonement / redemption.
You cannot help but imply these meanings by using some of the previous Scripture’s content. Just like the Qur’an never says the text of the previous Scriptures was corrupted, so also, the Qur’an cannot help but imply the meanings of the OT sacrifices and the foreshadowing of Messiah by seeking to affirm some of it.
LikeLike
“The Arabic words for ransom فدای and فدیه and sacrifice / slaughter ذبح are not about reward, rather substitutionary atonement / redemption.”
Don’t make stuff from your head. Allah عز وجل saved that son, and gave a ram as a reward (instead of ), and that why the word فديناه was used. فداء and ذبح are not synonymous words, btw.
“You cannot help”
I surely can help you to understand Arabic instead of Farsi which has nothing to do with Qur’an.
Again can you read this text by the same lens you have read the Qur’anic text through?
“The wicked is a((( ransom))) for the righteous, and the traitor for the upright”
Proverbs 21:18″
Also, are you suggesting that we can be justified by a ram?
We have discussed your scriptures and their history many times on this blog, yet you’re just an average pastor who like to preach not to learn.
Finally, this is the core of your problem
” I have no idea how satan plays with the christian mind. The idea of atonement that christians have is very absurd, and it doesn’t make any sense.
I mean christians have created a theological a problem from out of the blue and without any basis (i.e. in this case the problem is sins cannot be forgiven without blood), then after that they’ve created nonsense solution to solve it (i.e. the solution is God himself has to die so sins can be forgiven), while their’s no a theological problem in the first place, and even if it’s there, the solution cannot be the death of God!”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Intellect wrote
It is only sincere repentance and God Mercy that is key here, not blood.
No one can sincerely repent (because human hearts are full of sin, selfishness, pride, lusts – enslaved to sin – John 8:34; Ephesians 2:1-3; Romans 3:9-23 – all are under sin, etc.) unless the God of the Bible draws them (John 6:44 – “no one is able to come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him . . .” ) / awakens them / makes them alive (Ephesians 2:1-5), granting them the ability to repent and believe in Christ. (Acts 11:18 – “wow, well, God has granted even to the Gentile nations repentance that leads to life.” 2 Timothy 2:24-26 -” if God perhaps will grant repentance and they escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.”
Monotheism, as in Islam, does not save – James 2:19 – “the demons believe that God is one” – but that does not save
LikeLike
God of Isa Al Masih has already told you what saves you:
The greatest commandment
– Proclaim monotheism, the Tauhid: Hear, O Israel: YHWH our God, YHWH is ONE.
– Love God more than everything..
LikeLike
Ken Temple
January 30, 2018 • 10:31 pm
Intellect wrote
It is only sincere repentance and God Mercy that is key here, not blood
No one can sincerely repent (because human hearts are full of sin, selfishness, pride, lusts……..
I say;
You are telling us that there is no repentance. If there is no repentance, why is the Bible containing many verses that tell people to repent? but no single verse that says killing a human being or God dying is the only way to save people?
Proof( I have brought my clear proof) bring yours that says “God dying is the only way to save humans”)
Matthew 4:17 NIV
17 From that time on Jesus began to preach, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.”
Ezekiel 18:30-32
“Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, each according to his conduct,” declares the Lord GOD. “Repent and turn away from all your transgressions, so that iniquity may not become a stumbling block to you
Acts 3:19 NIV
19 Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord,
Luke 5:31-32 NIV
31 Jesus answered them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 32 I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”
Jeremiah 31:19 NIV
19 After I strayed, I repented; after I came to understand, I beat my breast. I was ashamed and humiliated because I bore the disgrace of my youth.’
Matthew 3:8 NIV
8 Produce fruit in keeping with repentance.
MUSLIMS BELIEVE IN THE ONLY ONE GOD OF ABRAHAM WHO IS ALONE AND FOLLOW HIS LAW LIKE MOSES, ABRAHAM etc. did. The Demons do not follow God’s law, so you cannot compare them with us but you can compare them with Christians who do not follow God’s law or have law to follow,. Ch
Thanks
LikeLike
Without God’s grace in converting the heart, no one is able truly love God with all their heart.
“No one is able to come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him . . . ” (the internal drawing and convincing that leads to conversion)
This is an interesting discussion that Dr. Brown had with someone raised as a Christian who converted to Judaism:
She had to confess that she did not love God with all her heart; yet earlier claimed it is possible to be totally obedient to God’s law;
LikeLike
The above verse is John 6:44
LikeLike
The idea of atonement that christians have is very absurd, and it doesn’t make any sense.
It is a Jewish idea that started in Genesis 3 (God killing animals to provide skins for Adam and Eve, Genesis 4 – Abel’s blood sacrifice offering/worship; Genesis 6-9, Noah’s sacrifices, Genesis 22 (the willingness of Abraham to sacrifice his only son of his love = unique son); Exodus 12 (Passover lambs); Leviticus chapters 1-7; 16-17 (Day of Atonements); Psalm 22 (Prophesy of Messiah); Isaiah 52:13-15; 53:1-12 (Prophesy of Messiah / The Suffering Servant); Daniel 9:24-27 (Prophesy of Messiah to come who would provide atonement as he was killed, then the temple destroyed again – prediction of 70 AD.
The Qur’an shows no understanding of this except for the hint given in Surah 37:107; what I said about Fada فداء (ransom, redemption) and Zebh ذبح (slaughter, sacrifice) stands.
I mean christians have created a theological a problem from out of the blue and without any basis (i.e. in this case the problem is sins cannot be forgiven without blood), then after that they’ve created nonsense solution to solve it (i.e. the solution is God himself has to die so sins can be forgiven), while their’s no a theological problem in the first place, and even if it’s there, the solution cannot be the death of God!”
Christians did not create anything, much less a problem.
Jesus Himself said He was the fulfillment of all the OT prophesies mentioned above (and many others about other aspects of His character and work.
Mark 10:45
Matthew 20:28
Mark 14:24
Matthew 26:28
Luke 22:19-20
Luke 24:25-27
Luke 24:44-47
LikeLike
There is nothing in the bible, a clear teaching that blood sacrifices were necessary in order to atone for sins. Certainly, the jews did animal sacrifice if one could afford it, but the jews understood it as part of the atonement process for unintentional sins , and also since flour could be used for a sin offering, it is clear that blood was NOT a necessary.
The idea that only blood sacrifice provide atonement creates a dilemma because that wouldn’t be available to all people at all times. Prayer and repentance ie. righteousness are the ultimate mean for securing atonement.
//The Qur’an shows no understanding of this except for the hint given in Surah 37:107; what I said about Fada فداء (ransom, redemption) and Zebh ذبح (slaughter, sacrifice) stands.//
On the contrary The Qur’an gave the correct understanding. The Akedah was an beautiful and clear example how a prayer of righteous servant of God,Abraham was heard by God , and his son WAS SAVED and his act of obedience and the test from God become an example for later generations
Every year muslims commemorated act of obedience of loving God Abraham in a big way. Milion upon million of animal slaughtered wordwide l and the meat are shared for the needy as acts of other God commandment (love your neighbour/fellow human being).
LikeLike
You know what Ken?
I know why you are surrounding yourself with this childish repetitive preaching which is filled with lot of nonsense lies.
After all, dealing with the truth of Islam is a suicidal mission for your fragile and insecure belief, and that is not new news for us as muslims. We know that already as Qur’an tells us
“Say, “The truth has come, and falsehood can neither begin [anything] nor repeat [it].” QT.
You have no choice except to receive your devastation. I mean you’re not gonna be better than your teacher James who has giving up the actual debating in favor of preachings.
You said:
“The Qur’an shows no understanding of this except for the hint given in Surah 37:107; what I said about Fada فداء (ransom, redemption) and Zebh ذبح (slaughter, sacrifice) stands.”
You bet? 🙂
Qu’ran was giving a very profound lesson. Again, the word فدا was used since that son was saved and got substituted by that reward from Allah عزوجل, and even the verses continue:
“Peace upon Abraham.” “Indeed, We thus reward the doers of good” “Indeed, he was of Our believing servants”. It’s very clear , and that you couldn’t answer my question about (Proverbs 21:18)
The word thebh is a noun for that ram. What’s your problem with that exactly?
Also, if Qur’an got it wrong, are you saying jews got it wrong too? Read Genesis 22:12-13 &18
It’s all about how obedient Abraham was after that test, and that why your bible ironically titles that chapter by (Abraham Tested).
However, let’s see who gets that beautiful story miserably wrong. We know that christians
insanely try to project their nonsense belief back on the OT. They say that story is a mirror of Jesus’ story! yet and insanely again Jesus is represented by Isaac who was saved not the ram which got killed!
Moreover, that story teaches us that a person can be obedient before Allah as Abraham was. Finally and most important is this question you have not answered so far, are christians suggesting that a person can be saved by a ram? In sum, that story as a whole is against your religion, Ken
Insha’ Allah I’ll write more about the subject later, especially regarding what so called (prophecies about god who dies”
LikeLiked by 1 person
When I get time, I will type out the answers to your questions about Proverbs 21:3 and Proverbs 21:18.
You mentioned the flour / cereal offerings in Leviticus 5:11-13, and Adnan Rashid in his debate with Dr. White also mentioned other verses that speak of atonement without blood.
Intellect says:
It is only sincere repentance and God Mercy that is key here, not blood.
and also Eric quoted Proverbs 21:3
“To do righteousness and justice is desired by the Lord rather than sacrifice” (short answer, he is not talking about all sacrifices; rather God is saying that obedience is better than just going through the ritual without repentance, faith, and obedience – the same idea in 1 Sam. 15:22 and Hosea 6:6 – God did not like it when the Jews just went through the ritual as a duty and did not ALSO have heart repentance / faith/ and heart commitment to obedience and change, etc.
Our view (the Christian view) includes both and all the verses, properly understood.
we believe those verses, properly understood, but your view is just ignoring ALL the other whole chapters about blood sacrifice.
Genesis 3-4
Genesis 6, 7,8, 9
Genesis 22
Exodus 12
Exodus 24
Exodus 25-40 – whole chapters and more than half of the book of Exodus about the building of the tabernacle and all those details for the priests in order to offer sacrifices properly, etc. sprinkling blood on things, etc.
Leviticus chapters 1-7; chapters 16-17
1 Kings 8
Daniel 9:24-27
Ezekiel chapters 40-48 – rebuilding of the temple and the phrase “to make atonement” repeated a lot.
If what you guys say is true, and you are claiming the OT just says, “repent and do righteous deeds” and “no need for sacrifices”, etc.
Why did God even bother with all that detail all through the TaNakh about blood sacrifices?
LikeLike
The grain / cereal / flour offering in Leviticus 5:11-13 was a concession for the extremely poor people; but it is significant that the the flour offering was added to and poured on top of the blood offerings and burned together. (Leviticus 5:12 shows that. “upon the offerings of the Lord by fire”)
LikeLike
Proverbs 21:18 is not talking about spiritual salvation / ransom as a ransom to get rid of guilt and get forgiveness; rather that verse is just saying that when wicked people plan treacherous evil, many times the situation gets turned around and God deals justice to them with the violence that they had planned against the righteous, like Haman and Mordecai in the book of Esther.
Proverbs 21:18
The wicked is a ransom for the righteous,
And the treacherous is in the place of the upright.
Not to make spiritual satisfaction of their guilt for them, as Christ is a ransom for His people (Mark 10:45; Isaiah 53:1-12; Daniel 9:24-27); but as a substitute is in the place of another, so the wicked comes in the place of the righteous, and into the trouble he is delivered from; as Haman for Mordecai (in the book of Esther), see also Proverbs 11:8 .
Haman plotted and planned to kill the Jews in Persia, and he had a hanging gallows made for Mordecai, but the King discovered Haman’s wickedness and all the planning of evil of Human turned out in the end to be used to execute him. the meaning of Proverbs 21:18 is not about spiritual salvation (like Christ), but is talking about when wicked people plot to do evil, many times their own evil is turned against them and justice comes on them and the wicked get the justice in the place of the wickedness that was planned for the righteous person.
LikeLike
Intellect wrote:
I say;
You are telling us that there is no repentance.
I never said or wrote that.
If there is no repentance, why is the Bible containing many verses that tell people to repent? but no single verse that says killing a human being or God dying is the only way to save people?
Proof( I have brought my clear proof) bring yours that says “God dying is the only way to save humans”)
Matthew 4:17 NIV
17 From that time on Jesus began to preach, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.”
Of course God and Christ tells us to repent; and I believe in all the verses you cited.
The commands to repent and believe, etc. are there, yes; but they do not say that a person is able in his / her own power to actually do the repentance / faith, etc.
Only when God the Spirit, or the Father acting mysteriously and spiritually, gives grace and His Spirit of regeneration / drawing, can a person truly repent and believe in Christ.
John 6:44
No one is able to come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.
see also John 6:65 – “for this reason I say to you that no one is able to come to Me unless it has been granted from the Father.”
John 8:43 – “Why do you not understand what I am saying? Because you cannot hear My word.”
John 8:47 – you don’t hear Me because you are not “of God”. (you are not born again yet; or you are not one of the elect – you have not been born again on the inside; you are still just a natural human without God’s Spirit.
Romans 8:7 – “the mind set on the flesh cannot . . . cannot please God . . . ” Cannot; is not able to
1 Cor. 2:14-16 – “the natural man is not able . . . ”
Acts 16:14 – the Lord opened Lydia’s heart to respond to the things that Paul was preaching.
LikeLike
It was a very Jewish idea that “one man should die for the people”- even the unbeliever Caiaphas said that.
John 11:49-52
LikeLike
Salaam Eric,
It was a good post, and sparked a good conversation. I think the Islamic perspective would indicate that the moral of the story about Abraham and the sacrifice, is about obedience to the commandments of Allah, submission to his will which is what Islam is really all about.
However, having said that, one could also understand the story as you seem to have understood it. That is to say that the moral of the story is about Loving God – for one who truly loves God will seek to please him, and therefore, will naturally submit his own will to the will of God, and obey his commandments, (not associating partners in worship; following the divine law, offering prayer and repentance, charity, etc.) thus finding peace and salvation through the Islamic path.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wa alaikum salaam, Jazakallah khayran for you encouraging words brother. All praise to Allah Azza wa Jal its always my humble endeavour, making da’wah getting people closer to our Deen and hopefully make them receive hidaayah anda rahmah from Allah Azza wa Jal.
the ‘Islamic’ perspective is always the original perspective which had been revealed in Scriptures that the moral of the story about Abraham and the sacrifice, is about obedience to the commandments of Allah, submission to his will which is what the genuine message of God about how to achieve salvation: the greatest commandments, yes it is what Islam is really all about..
Please make Du’a that Allah Azza wa Jal forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell and lead all souls to Jannah
LikeLike
These are some personal thoughts about the subject of salvation in Pauline christianity.
First of all, remember my brothers and sister in Islam; the core of this subject is that christians are telling us that “almighty God became a created being to take the job of jews’ animals”
Any thing beyond this statement above christians try to argue about is just a worthless preaching and useless rhetoric tactic.
Second, christians have never answered the serious implications for this crazy belief. At least there has not been any serious try to accomplish that. There are many and very serious theological problems for that insane belief such as the death of God, the justice of God, and the gross contradictions between the OT and teachings of Paul in the NT.
In sum, It’s not enough from christians to say that there’s a ritual and system of sacrifice in the OT. What does that prove?
We know that a [goat] can bear all the sins of Israelites, and it got released even!
Again, christians have created a problem from out of the blue and without any basis (i.e. in this case the problem is sins cannot be forgiven without blood), then after that they’ve created a nonsense solution to solve it (i.e. the solution is God himself has to die so sins can be forgiven), while their’s no a problem in the first place. It’s found only in the their heads and in the personalty of Paul who hated the law of God. Also, even if it’s there a problem, the solution cannot be the death of God! In short, christians carve their idols by their hands, then try to find the evidences to support their belief in those idols!
Third, in the OT, we know that the matter of sacrifice is not the (CORE) for forgiveness the sins. Rather there are basic teachings which make sense theologically and logically about how human beings can be forgiven.
Let’s see some example;
( Isaiah 1:11-18 ) ” What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the LORD; I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of well-fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of goats…..until “Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool”
(Psalm 51:17) “The sacrifice you desire is a broken spirit. You will not reject a broken and repentant heart, O God”
(Proverbs 21:3) “The LORD is more pleased when we do what is right and just than when we offer him sacrifices”
(Job 22:21-30) “Submit to God and be at peace with him; in this way prosperity will come to you….till “He will deliver even one who is not innocent, who will be delivered through the cleanness of your hands.”
( The whole chapter of Ezekiel 18 ) “But if wicked people turn away from all their sins and begin to obey my decrees and do what is just and right, they will surely live and not die”
However, what do christians say to the words of almighty God? They say we reject your teachings because of the words of Paul ! Turning to God without the blood of God himself is worthless according to Pauline christianity.
======================
*What about the teaching of Jesus?
Jesus named the (most important thing in his message which gives the eternal life) according to Jesus’ expression in the gospels which are;
1)Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.
2) keep the commandments.
3) To know the Father as the (only true) God, and Jesus is the christ whom He sent.
In fact, Jesus was more than clear about the law of God in (Matthew 5), and he said “For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven”
Jesus sain in (John John 15:22)
“If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have been guilty of sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin”
It’s not a problem at all if Jesus emphasized in the meanings and the spiritual dimension behind the law and the commandments of God for that doesn’t mean he was abolishing the law. No!
Read what Jesus said in (Luke 11:42)
“Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter (((without leaving the former undone)))”
Jesus commanded his followers like this in ( Matthew 23)
“so DO and OBSERVE whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice.”
Therefore, we conclude Jesus was upset from their hypocrisy not from the law they taught.
Also, christians have to know that muslims can sense the real teachings of Jesus for they’re similar to the teachings of the prophet pbuh. For example, the Prophet (ﷺ) said, “If one does not eschew lies and false conduct, Allah has no need that he should abstain from his food and his drink.” Bukhari
The prophet pbuh here doesn’t say just be truthful, and you don’t need to fast! No! And you will not find any understanding like that in islamic jurisprudence. It’s just an emphasis of what fast should mean for the rela muslim.
Paul, on the other hand, would understand that just be truthful in your heart, and the law of fast is abolished for you because it leads to death, and it just shows us how sinful we are! No! No!
Yet and again Jesus’ teaching blocks the mentality of Paul
“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it”
================
Regarding what so called (prophecies in the OT) about Jesus’ death. I really advice christians to rediscover what the definition of (prophecy).
(Matthew 2:15) is a good example of how to deform what the prophecy means!
What makes me get angry that christians always mock muslims about this subject
I mean come on! Muslims provide very solid arguments based on historic, linguistic, and good analytic method for the prophecies. In fact, some arguments provided by muslims match with some jewish commentaries. In contrast, christians provide a very stupid approach to what so called prophecies. In fact, many of them are insane,and there’s no real standard for their interpretation. For example, in what sense the prophecy x is fulfilled or why they interpret the x verse figuratively such the passages in Psalms! Christians twist them till last drop to match their insanely view!
Finally, the core teachings of the OT and the teaching of Jesus is not about the blood for sure. I think it’s a fair approach for the subject.
And please dear christians, don’t try to accuse us that we pick and choose! No! we are just dealing with the documents you have as they are. These documents have history, so we need to approach them as such.
I urge christians to repent t Allah عزوجل before there comes a Day in which there is no exchange and no friendship and no intercession. And the disbelievers – they are the wrongdoers.
You don’t need the idol of the cross to do that. Submit yourself to Allah for “the LORD is more pleased when we do what is right and just than when we offer him sacrifices”
LikeLike
I mean come on! Muslims provide very solid arguments based on historic, linguistic, and good analytic method for the prophecies.
Like denying established history of Jesus Al Masih’s crucifixion and death on the cross.
Like denying the history of Christianity for 500 years and claiming God said things that show God was ignorant of history – since He did not know what the doctrine of the Trinity is, and getting the Sonship of Jesus wrong; since He doesn’t (in the Qur’an) and got it all wrong in Surah 5:116; 5:72-75; 6:101
Right. . .
Like trying to find Muhammad in Song of Solomon 5:16
David Wood gets it right here:
For anyone who has read Song of Solomon, this is an amazing verse to cite as evidence for Islam! Song of Solomon is a short poetic book about a loving, physical relationship between Solomon and his bride (there are a variety of interpretations, but none will help turn this into a prophecy about Muhammad). Some Muslims claim that this book can’t be the Word of God, because of the way Solomon and his bride talk about each other’s bodies. For example, in chapter 7, verses 1-3, Solomon says to his bride:
How beautiful your sandaled feet, O prince’s daughter! Your graceful legs are like jewels, the work of an artist’s hands. Your navel is a rounded goblet that never lacks blended wine. Your waist is a mound of wheat encircled by lilies. Your breasts are like two fawns, like twin fawns of a gazelle.
Solomon continues praising her body. And yet Muslims go to this book to find a prophecy about Muhammad!
Let’s turn to chapter 5, which supposedly mentions Muhammad by name. In the first verse of the chapter, Solomon says:
I have come into my garden, my sister, my bride; I have gathered my myrrh with my spice. I have eaten my honeycomb and my honey; I have drunk my wine and my milk.
Solomon talks about drinking wine. But again, Muslims go to this chapter to find a prophecy about Muhammad!
LikeLike
Ken,
Before you start quoting the clown, you have to know that historically and even in recent days, christians have been reading that very chapter as a prophecy about Jesus, and James White admitted that.
“The Rabbis at Yabneh accepted the Song into the canon — to believe Rabbi Aqiba, without much hesitation — because they read it both pseudepigraphically, as stemming from King Solomon himself, and allegorically, as a depiction of God’s love for Israel rather than man’s love of sexual partnership.
(Anselm C. Hagedom (editor); Perspectives on the Song of Songs, page 107)
“The surface or “literal” subject matter of the Song was the love that joins a bride and her betrothed, asexual longing that the Song celebrates cheerfully. Understood in that way, how– ever, the Song had little to say directly about the relation between God and “us”;and that relation of course defines the basic interest — the agenda — that Jews and Christians alike brought, and bring, to their reading of the Scriptures. Hence the traditional resort to allegory in interpretation of the Song: the love that it celebrates is treated as a figure or analogy for the love between God and the people of God, the Church. ”
(Richard A. Norris Jr ; The Song of Songs: Interpreted by Early Christian and Medieval Commentators, page 1)
However, we know that you’re just hypocrites who see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ken Temple
I have come into my garden, my sister, my bride; I have gathered my myrrh with my spice. I have eaten my honeycomb and my honey; I have drunk my wine and my milk.
Solomon talks about drinking wine. But again, Muslims go to this chapter to find a prophecy about Muhammad!
I say;
Christians find their theology the next verse which says they must drink poison and let poisonous snakes like black cobra, black mamba and rattle snake bite them. Most Christians will not drink poison or let snakes bite them except the people of the Apallachian. Also, the crucifixion is different from gospels and one recorded zombies coming from their graves, yet the Christians believe the stories. You are now finding it difficult to understand why some Muslims may also find something close to wine. \
With regares to the Sonship/sonship of Jesus Christ. Son/son and begotten means someone who was given birth and so what understanding do you want to Quran to explain? Christians have different understandings of the Son/son with regards to Christ.
The meaning of Son/son and begotten no matter what, is not befitting to the God Almighty. God is not Son/son to anyone. No matter how you define it. It is just like saying God is a brother or slave to someone and may Allah forbid. The Quran is telling you that, no matter what Son/son means, it cannot be used for God. What is your problem with regards to this?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken Temple
Dr. James White will not preach the verse which says Christians must drink poison and let poisonous snakes bite them in his(Dr. White’s) Church. But the verse is close to your(Christian) theology. Why blame some Muslims who think prophet Mohammed is mentioned in the song of Solomon? Like Dr. White, you(Ken), David Wood etc. some Muslims can also take the name of prophet Mohammed and discard the wine. If you live in a glass house, do not throw stones.
Do not take the ideas of David Wood, Sam Shamoun, Spencer etc. because they do not think before attacking Islam. Dr. James White has debated more Muslims than them and he has come to realized that, any attack on Muslims by Christians can be returned to Christians in ten folds. He(Dr. White) has minimized his attach on Islam and is in debating mode with us.
LikeLiked by 1 person
correction: attack not attach.
LikeLike
I agree with Dr. White’s approach.
But on that issue, the quote from David Wood agrees with the content of Dr. White’s content also. It was just easier to find because David Wood has written it all out.
It is a massive ridiculous argument to think Song of Solomon 5:16 as a prophesy of Muhammad, the founder of Islam, 600 years too late.
Even Atheists get things right sometimes, like 2 + 2 = 4.
David Wood got that issue right; and he gets a lot of stuff right.
LikeLike
“No, why is it then the kohen sacrificed a bull for himself and his own household if the goat was meat to atone for all sins?? because the goat was only to atone for those who, in a state of uncleanness, willfully entered the Temple. You missed the point.”
The high priest had to purify himself before he could offer up a sacrifice for the people.
No Israelite would wilfully defile himself and then enter the temple. That is defying God presumptuously and they would be cut off. So the only way to be forgiven was if they sinned through ignorance.
LikeLike
“Even Atheists get things right sometimes, like 2 + 2 = 4.”
Look who’s taking here. 🙂
Ken you are just a delusive preacher and nothing more.
We are not arguing whether songs of Solomon is a good a argument or not rather we affirm that muslims have a far better argument when it comes to the prophecies. Regarding Songs of Solomon, christians have been using that passage and jews as well. We simply say if you can see Jesus in that passage, we have more reasons to see the prophet pbuh. What we are saying that Muslims have provided a quite, solid, and very strong arguments regarding the prophecies.
Christians, on the other hand, have been providing very weak and so laughable ones. i mean you have failed in the level of the definition of the prophecy is in the first place such as in (Matthew 2:15). Notice this what is mentioned in your books. I think there’s no need to know the miserable “prophecies” that christians use from their own heads nowadays. Again, you’re just hypocrites! Come o , Ken! You must know that! I mean
you have been failing miserably in confronting Islam in every level for 1400 years, yet you still compare Islam with Mormonism in American churches! This mentality of arrogance is the best way to the Hellfire!
Finally let me just correct you about this when you said
“He did not know what the doctrine of the Trinity is, and getting the Sonship of Jesus wrong; since He doesn’t (in the Qur’an) and got it all wrong in Surah 5:116; 5:72-75; 6:101”
Not at all. Qur’an gets the reality of christians accurately inch by inch, yet you are so ignorant to realize that because you think christianity began with the understanding of your sect!
When Qur’an states and in the most eloquent and clear manner that:
1) Allahعزوجل is the only true God
2) Jesus is just one of his creations.
3) Christians have to stop this notion of three.
Then indeed Qur’an has destroyed your religion as whole by all the understandings that have been found in it. Qur’an has done that perfectly and elegantly .
It’s really a stupid idea when James White and you are demanding Qur’an to use your own invented wordings to refute your religion, while ironically your own scriptures have no clue about your wordings nor your understandings.
If you want to demand something, then you should demand that from the authors of your scriptures since they and obviously have no idea whatsoever to the notion of the Trinity nor the hypostatic union.
LikeLiked by 2 people