If we were to read the translation of another Christian, for example Dr James Moffatt, we would find that in his translation ‘The Holy Bible Containing the Old and New Testaments’ the verse reads:
“For a child is born to us, a child has been given to us; the royal dignity he wears, and this the title bears – ‘A wonder of a counsellor, a divine hero, a father for all time, a peaceful prince’”
[Sourced from Misha’al ibn Abdullah’s What did Jesus Really Say, IANA, 2001, p108]
We can see, from Dr Moffatt's translation, Isaiah 9:6 is not pointing to the divinity of Jesus. In fact the Jewish interpretations teach us this verse does not even refer to Jesus at all!
Jewish view on Isaiah 9:6 (from JewsforJudaism)
There are several Jewish interpretations offered to explain this verse, but they all recognize that the verse is speaking of Hezekiah’s salvation from the threat of Sennacherib. The words “he called his name” can be read in three different ways. 1) That the following phrases are all names of the child (this is how the Christians read the verse). 2) That the phrases following the introduction (“he called his name”) are descriptions of the one doing the calling. 3) The concept of calling a name is not being used in its literal sense, but rather in a metaphoric sense as in Ruth 4:11, where the phrase “and call a name” is used to mean - making a mark, or leaving a memory. According to this interpretation the phrases are not names of the child or of the name-giver. Rather these describe concepts that people will associate with the memory of the child. All of these interpretations conform with the grammatical structure of the verse, and the Jewish commentators may utilize any of the three readings (or a combination of these explanations) of this introductory phrase.
Assuming that the names are titles of the child, one Jewish commentator offers the following interpretation. The child will be called “The Mighty God, Father unto eternity and Prince of peace is planning a wonder.” In other words, the child’s name is a complete sentence describing God’s action. Another interpretation in keeping with this reading of the introductory phrase ascribes all of these titles to Hezekiah, but changes the translation. Hezekiah was a wonderful counselor to his people. The words “e-l gibbor”, generally translate as “mighty God”, but they could just as easily mean “mighty warrior”, with no reference to divinity. In fact the same expression “el gibbor” is found in Ezekiel 32:21 (in the plural form) and the context makes it obvious that the reference is to humans with no connection to divine strength. “Avi ad” is generally translated as “father of eternity”, but that is not the literal meaning of the words. The literal translation is “father unto” or “father until”, with the implication of “father unto eternity.”
Some would argue that Hezekiah’s personal life reflected God’s control over time, for he merited two miracles that violated the natural laws of time (Isaiah 38). Others would say that the translation is incorrect, but rather it should read “father of spoils”, which is an apt description of Hezekiah’s victory over Sennacherib. And Hezekiah was indeed a prince of peace, as Isaiah prophesied (39:8).
The Targums refute the evangelical Christian missionary view
The oldest Jewish commentary (Targum – which probably predates the advent of Christianity) explains that the first three titles in the verse are those of the One giving the name, while the name given to the child is “prince of peace.” So God is the wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, and Father unto (eternity), while Hezekiah is the prince of peace.
The spirit of the verse, is that the child will somehow be a cause for the salvation of the Jewish people from the oppression of Sennacherib. Indeed, Hezekiah’s prayer was the catalyst for God’s intervention on behalf of His people (Isaiah 37:21, 2Kings 19:20). Isaiah is comforting his people. Although Achaz (Hezekiah’s father) was evil, but his child was holy and righteous. In the merit of this holy child, who bore upon his shoulders the government of his people, the nation could hope to survive the onslaught of Sennacherib and his hordes.
[http://www.jewsforjudaism.org.au/node/26]
Conclusion
When Christians present passages from Isaiah PLEASE double check them as they impose their Trinitarian presuppositions upon the verses. The fact remains, Jesus did not teach the Trinity (as indicated by early Christian source material - the Gospel of Mark), yet over zealous missionaries impose Trinitarian understandings upon the Old Testament. I've even noted some neo-trinitarian Christians imposing their presuppositions to the OT and coming up with the conclusion of an ANGEL being God - I kid you not, there are some missionaries who DO go to such extents!
Search for the Truth and the Truth shall set you free...
Muhammad and Jesus (p)
Christian Missionary Pastor converts to Islam
Bible: Muslims are blessed
Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
58 comments:
White just put up a video representing his reaction toward the internet frenzy concerning Rob Bell's new book, Love Wins. Only three minutes in, White had this to say:
Rob Bell is all over the place with an upcoming book that I haven't seen and I'm not going to comment on. Ummm...charges of universalism and all sorts of stuff like that. I'm not going to touching on that in this video because I don't know anything about it. But given that this type of interest has been generated, I felt it would be worth-wild...would be important..and be useful to folk and point out that we don't have to look outside of the context the Bible itself provides for us to look for Jesus and a proper explanation for Who Jesus was or what He did [2:59--3:39, embolden mine]
The truth is, James White has got this one right: attempting to comment on a book one has not read not only is unacceptable critical protochol no matter one's particular worldview, my perspective is, it remains fundamentally disturbing. From where I was raised in middle Tennessee, it would be called undiluted hogwash.
http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/james-white/
Thanks for that entirely irrelevant comment, Anonymous#1.
In other news, this latest post by Yahya has already been refuted at Answermuslims.com. How embarassing.
@anon,
Mr Rogers' overly combative post is hardly a response worthy of my time.
It appears Mr Rogers has taken advantage ofmy relaying of the Jewish understanding from a Jewish website and somehow produced a response to a "dawagandist" (whatever one of those is).
The fact remains, Mr Rogers is all over the place in tht post. He does not touch on Dr Moffaatt's translation and nor does he do the Jewish view any justice either, why?
It appears Rogers has the hump over a comment related to the Mal'ak Yahweh. Rogers' saw an opportunity to look as though he is offering substance - yet proved to be self refuting.
Rogers was nowhere when asked to respond to the material by TGV on the Malak Yahweh - not a peep from Rogers
Rogers has seeen his belief in the Holy Spirit questioned in a faith shattering fashion - not a peep from Rogers
Rogers has seeen the Incarnation questioned to a faith shattering extent - not a peep from Mr Rogers
Rogers has seen the Bible's reliability to be proven to be lacking - not a peep from Rogers
Rogers saw his friend Sam rebuked with authority concerning his neo-trinitarian position on the angel of the lord (yes, he also beleievs an angel to be God!) - nothing of convincing substance from him - despite a ton of hot air.
If I was Hogan Hagbard I would consider his lack of a link as him having something to hide :)
Anyway, it may spur me on to upload my response to his previous tome on the Mal'ak Yahweh - I was held up last weekend.
Don't be swayed by paper champs who knock down straw men they build - sadly, this is the state of Christian apologetics.
Anthony, if you are reading: up your level of scholarship and feel free to relent on your previous positions - they have proven to be false - do not defend arguments based on pride.
I invite you to a relationship with God. I invite you to the Truth.
Search for the truth and you shall be set free...
This is too rich! Mr. Rogers melted your frosty feet in a matter of minutes after your post went up, and all you can do is reply with a bunch of rhetoric?
As for TGV, could you direct us all to his response on the Malak Yahweh? Also, can you explain why you keep calling Anthony's view "neo-Trinitarian," a claim you offer no argument for, while Anthony has provided copious documentation in his articles (not to mention in several blog posts in response to you) that demonstrate the antiquity of this view both in ancient Judaism and in early Christianity? Also, you called his response a "straw-man". Can you show us how he misrepresented your post? In fact, couldn't he argue that you misrepresented him when you, without explaining what he (and other Christians) mean by "angel" in this context, i.e. messenger, leave the impression that he believes a created angel is God? This is especially troubling in light of the fact that he has corrected you on this and you know very well that that is not what he means. Aren't you bearing false witness when you carry on in this fashion, refusing to be corrected and continuing to spread this lie to your readers? Finally, can you tell us how his post is self-refuting? Simply saying so doesn't make it so.
Please save the rhetoric and "bring forth your proof, if you are truthful."
You are invited to turn to the Lord Jesus Christ. Only then will the veil be removed; only then will the scales fall from your eyes.
Oh yeah, what does Mr. Hagbard have to do with any of this? Why did you bring his name up? I am assuming that you were so flustered, as the quality of your reply indicates, that you meant to say Anthony Rogers but accidentally mentioned Mr. Hagbard.
If that is so, I would surmise that since your posts are full of such bad information about the positions you tackle and the people you bring up, that he didn't want to contribute to the gossip mill you have here by sending anyone with itching ears your way. You do have a reputation for bad scholarship and slander, as I am sure you know. If you want an example of bad scholarship and misrepresentation, look no further than this post of yours.
@anonymous, the latest one
Calm down. I mentioned Hogan as he advances the idea of refusing to link to the article you are rsponding to is due to cowardice.
Please maintain a sense of decorum. There is no reason for you tirade against me.
Iron sharpens iron as one man sharpens another.
@the other anon, I will try to respond to your comment tomorrow, I'm pushed for time tonight...got to go bed.
Peace
@Yayha since you will not go to Anthony's post on the AM blog Anthony's post will come to you.
Isaiah 9:6: Holding A Muslim Dawagandist's Feet of Snow to the Fire
In a very poorly researched article, a certain Muslim dawandist had no compunction about making the following, easily falsifiable claims in the context of discussing Isaiah 9:6, all of which, accordingly, will be dealt with in short order:
1) the passage is about Hezekiah (not the Messiah)
2) the Jewish “Targums” refute the evangelical view of Isaiah 9:6
3) the “Targums” assign the first three titles of Isaiah 9:6 to God and the last one to the child (i.e. Hezekiah)
4) the Angel of the LORD is not God, i.e. a divine theophany
5) “neo-trinitarians” “impose” their views on the Old Testament
Since the dawagandist in question obviously spent very little time and effort researching and writing the post in question, and since he managed to make so many errors in such a short space, all of which can be put down with a few swift but devastating strokes, the following will not aim to be comprehensive. Indeed, the article is so badly done, were it not for the fact that this individual makes covert reference to me and brother Sam Shamoun, I would not even bother with a refutation.
First of all, it would be interesting to know what the author is referring to when he speaks of “Targums” in the plural on the book of Isaiah. To my knowledge, there is only one extant Targum on Isaiah, the Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel.
@Yahya Part 2 of Anthony Rogers melting your feet.
Second, it is evident that this individual did not read Targum Isaiah, for it not only interprets the passage Messianically, but it assigns the entirety of the passage's lofty descriptions and titles to the Messiah.
The prophet said to the house of David, For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given, and He has taken the law upon Himself to keep it. His name is called from eternity, Wonderful, the Mighty God, who liveth to eternity, the Messiah, whose peace shall be great upon us in His days.
Third, the Septuagint (LXX), a pre-Christian Jewish translation, because of the ascription of divine titles to the Son and child of the prophecy, such as “wonderful”, which is only otherwise used for God (and the Angel of the LORD) in the Old Testament, understands the prophecy to refer to “the Angel of Great Counsel”.
For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger (Gr. angelos) of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him. His government shall be great, and of his peace there is no end: it shall be upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to support it with judgment and righteousness, from henceforth and forever. The seal of the Lord of hosts shall perform this.
@Yahya Part 3
The above shows, contrary to this dawagandist's claims, so-called “neo-trinitarians” like me and Sam are not “imposing” our views on the Old Testament; rather, it is those who, as a judicial consequence for the hardness of their hearts, are missing the obvious. As it says in the Targum of Isaiah 6:
In the year in which King Uzziah was smitten with the leprosy the prophet said, I saw the glory of the Lord sitting upon His throne, high, and lifted up unto the highest heavens, and the temple was filled with the brightness of His glory. Holy ministers on high stood before Him: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, that it should not see; and with twain he covered his body, that it should not be seen; and with twain he was ministering. And one cried unto another, and they were saying, Holy in the highest and exalted heavens is the house of His Shekinah, holy upon the earth is the work of His might, holy forever, world without end, is the Lord of hosts, the whole earth is full of the brightness of His glory. And the posts of the threshold of the temple moved at the voice of Him that cried, and the house of the sanctuary was filled with cloudy darkness. Then said I, Woe is me, for I have sinned, for I am a guilty man to reprove, and I dwell in the midst of a people polluted with sin: for my eyes have seen the glory of the Shekinah of the King of the worlds, the Lord of hosts.
@Yahya Frosty Feet part 4
Then flew one of the ministers unto me, and in his mouth was a word, which he received from the Shekinah of Him who sat upon the throne of glory in the highest heavens, above the altar. And he placed it in my mouth, and said, Behold, I have put the words of my prophecies in thy mouth, and thy iniquities are put away, and thy sins are expiated. And I heard the voice of the Word of the Lord, which said, whom shall I send to prophecy? and who will go to teach? Then said I, Here am I, send me. And He said, Go, and tell this people, who are diligently hearing, but understand not, and see diligently, but know not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and darken their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and repent, and it shall be forgiven them. (Targum Isaiah)
And, as the apostle John, the apostle of “the Word” (see John 1:1-18), declared, these things were spoken about Jesus, who came unto His own, but was not received, just as Isaiah prophesied:
"Now My soul has become troubled; and what shall I say, 'Father, save Me from this hour'? But for this purpose I came to this hour. Father, glorify Your name." Then a voice came out of heaven: "I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again."
@Yahya Snow Part 5
So the crowd of people who stood by and heard it were saying that it had thundered; others were saying, "An angel has spoken to Him." Jesus answered and said, "This voice has not come for My sake, but for your sakes. Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out. "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself." But He was saying this to indicate the kind of death by which He was to die. The crowd then answered Him, "We have heard out of the Law that the Christ is to remain forever; and how can You say, 'The Son of Man must be lifted up'? Who is this Son of Man?" So Jesus said to them, "For a little while longer the Light is among you Walk while you have the Light, so that darkness will not overtake you; he who walks in the darkness does not know where he goes. While you have the Light, believe in the Light, so that you may become sons of Light " These things Jesus spoke, and He went away and hid Himself from them. But though He had performed so many signs before them, yet they were not believing in Him. This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet which he spoke: "LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT? AND TO WHOM HAS THE ARM OF THE LORD BEEN REVEALED? [Isaiah 53]" For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, "HE HAS BLINDED THEIR EYES AND HE HARDENED THEIR HEART, SO THAT THEY WOULD NOT SEE WITH THEIR EYES AND PERCEIVE WITH THEIR HEART, AND BE CONVERTED AND I
@Yahya Snow Part 6
HEAL THEM. [Isaiah 6]” These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory, and he spoke of Him. Nevertheless many even of the rulers believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they were not confessing Him, for fear that they would be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the approval of men rather than the approval of God. (John 12:27-42)
Just did a word and character count on both articles.
Anthony's breif response was 1364 words, 7197 characters and Snowmans Frosty feet was only 837 words and 4945 Characters.
No wonder frosty doesn't want to respond its to many words :)
Brother block the AM comments as David does with us Muslims. If its good for the geese'''
@Yahya you said...
"It appears Mr Rogers has taken advantage ofmy relaying of the Jewish understanding from a Jewish website"
No thats not what you did. What you did was use ZIONIST ANTI MISSIONARY RABBINICAL JEWS WHO DON'T BELIEVE THAT JESUS IS THE MESSIAH, to prove that Jesus is NOT THE MESSIAH IN ISAIAH 9:6. But wait Jesus is the MESSIAH in Islamic Theology so I guess then that Islam is wrong?
Nothing unites Zionist Jews and Jihadi's like a common hate of Christ.
@Yahya Snow
Tell me how would you prove to a Zionist Anti Missionary Jew that Jesus is their messiah, since you believe that their sources teach that Jesus is not the JEWISH MESSIAH?
Frosty the Snowman
was a jolly happy soul
With a Quran Cob Pipe
and Pinocchio nose
and two eyes made out of coal.
Frosty the Snowman
Is Jinn Fighter they say
He is made of Bull
But he's Just a fool
when he chases Jinn away.
There must of been some magic
In that Jewish Website he found
For when he placed it on his site
He began to dance around.
Frosty the Snowman
Was as cold as he could be
And the Muslims Say
He can dance and play
Just the same as you and me.
Frosty the Snowman
knew the Truth was hot that day
So he said "LETS RUN"
Becasue it's no longer fun
As he began to melt away.
Down to the Masjid
With a bomb clenched in his hand
Running here and there before his prayers
Saying "Catch Me if you can"
Frosty the Snowman
Had to hurry on his way.
But he waved goodbye
Saying don't you cry
I will be back again some day.
Thumpety thump thump
Thumpety thump thump
Look at Frosty go
Thumpety thump thump
Thumpety thump thump
Over the hills of snow
Ahh Radical Moderate,
You sir are quite a character.You see I enjoy dealing with Christian apologists who are not dull. You're certainly far from dull.
Perhaps, apologetics is something you should not dabble in as your skills lie in your poetry.
Now then, I assume you arer pressing me to respond to your objections or rather brother Tony's objection.
Well, Tony hardly rebuts the material from the Jewish website. He does not even touch on their explanations - explanations which seem sound.
Quite why Anthony starts talking about the angel of the Lord (which he personally believes to have been God - I kid you not) is something a little circumspect.
You see, Mr Anthony got wind of me planning to upload on the angel of the lord issue so it seems Mr Anthony wanted to pre-empt me.
Anthony, you have said plenty on this issue, let someone else have a say.
The biggest problem here is that of circumnavigation. Tony, was aware of my posts on Bible errancy, the Holy Spirit and Incarnation, rather than dealing with these issues he has tried to present himself as a person who responds to material on this blog when in all actuality he is using selectivity to beguile us into thinking he is putting up substance.
He produced how many rambling posts on the Mal'ak Yahweh? In response to my solitary post!
He failed on that front - he produced nothing of genuine and I was planning to round upo what he had presented and refute anything he felt was "worthy". It's saying something when you need to produce a ton of posts on one topic - a topic which is not even relevant to most mainstarem Christians. But hey, whatever floats his boat, I will try to upload by the end of the week and remind him his personal belief is still incorrect despite all his words, and I mean ALL his words - a ton of words.
It speaks volumes that our Tony comes out to play when I simply produce a 5 min post of Dr Moffatt's translation and the Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 9:6. I really did not expect somebody to produce a response with such enthusiasm - especially from a somebody who has been found wanting when it comes to the bigger battles.
So, if Tony wants to present meaningful dialogue he would do well to focus on Dr Moffatt's translation - he conveniently missed it out AND he would do well to explain why he believes the Jewsih view is incorrect. It makes sense to me...whilst he looks into all of that I will try to upload a quick response to all his words supporting his personal belief in the Malak Yahweh.
Iron sharpens iron as one man sharpens another
@Radicalmoderate,
Sir you ask me how I would explain the status of Messiah for Jesus. No problem at all. I would point to the errors in the Hebrew Bible, some of the problems which seem to have been interpolations by scribes, having taught the Jewish brother the OT is unreliable and unsanctioned we would move onto the NT. Now, for both the Jewish brother and myself the NT would be irrelevant. However, it would be wise to point to the problems and the forgeries in the NT – for thoroughness.
Having done all that I would show him Islam – evidences for it and we would take it from there. We don’t need the OT (and certainly not the NT) to teach our Jewish brothers Jesus was the Messiah.
So you will not see me plucking and twisting vague passages from Isaiah/Psalms in order to teach the Jewish brother the Truth. Simple
Of course not, he would rather pluck and twist passages in the OT and turn them into vague predictions of Muhammad, kind of like when he promoted the idea that muhammad was prophesied in the "corrupt" OT "porn" book the Song of Solomon. Muslims are so gullible. And Yahya is an incorrigible purveyour of the slop some are quick to lap up. He has been so truly exposed by brother Rogers that, if I were him, I would follow the advice of the muslim above who was so embarassed for him that he counseled him to block comments from Christians.
@the latest anonymous,
Please calm down. I can't understand why so many anons are so confrontational.
Brother, I have never claimed the Bible to be "porn". Please retract such a comment.
As for the Song of Solomon, I go by the layerd meanings behind this passage - it points to the Prophet Muhammad (p). At the same time I never claim it to be definitive.
Come on, you KNOW Christians present vague passages from Psalm and Isaiah and they are so unimpressive due to the ambiguity.
Folk such as Shoebat take it too too far.
Peace
Of course Muhammad isn't even there beneath the layers (talk about ambiguous; that's quite a self-refuting admission on your part), but if you will forthrightly deny the slander of many of your partners in crime about SOS, then I will happily say this sacreligious blasphemy is not a sin you share in.
Please respond to brother Rogers. As of now you stand refuted and have offered us nothing, not even an apology for disseminating information that is as false as anything you have accused Shoebat, Shamoun, ABN amd others of engaging in.
@anon,
Of course I do not belive SOS is a book of "porn". Crikey, at this ministry we try to encourage cohesion and dialogue between Muslims and Christians.
Please do retract such a statement. Thanks.
Now, Shamoun, Shoebat etc are divisive and do spread misinformation.
I understand you may be a Shoebat and Shamoun fan but please do look into their material and check it out for yourself. You have nothing to lose.
James R White has rebuked Shoebat in the past - we have followed suit.
John Gilchrist has rebuked Shamoun - we have followed suit.
So you can see there are Christians who denounce this pair of "evangelists".
Thank you for your concern.
I invite you to Islam.
PS, please do review the material on Prophet Muhammad (p) in SOS, it is alot more potent than the vague passages which Shoebat/Shamoun use to prop their various claims. Think about it, if you were consistent you would believe the Prophet Muhammad (p) was in SOS.
Islam is for those who are willing to reflect deeply.
I bid you good night.
I happily retract saying you believe as a good number of your Muslim brother do who would make "such a statement" about the Spirit inspired Old Testament book the Song of Solomon. However, I can't help but observe, by letting one Muslim off the hook I have caught a heap of a lot more, for what you decry is just what a multitude of your co-religionists engage in all the time. Few people in life can say they have ever benefited from "a million for the price of one" sale as I now can say.
As for Muhammad in SOS, you have clearly refuted yourself and you don't even see it. Let me see if this will help you before you tuck yourself in after another unproductive day of not responding to Mr. Rogers.
First, you claim that Biblical predictions about the Messiah are vague and ambiguous.
Second, in an attempt to bolster the above claim, you have in this post argued that Isaiah 9:6 is not about the Messiah because a late, post-Christian English translation by an anti-Trinitarian with an axe to grind said it should be translated differently and because an anti-missionary Jewish website made a claim about how the passage refers to Hezekiah and that the first three titles refer to the name-giver rather than the one being named.
However, brother Rogers has utterly decimated the above claims, showing that the very Targum your Jewish source referred to undermines all of the above claims. The Targum shows: 1) it was not "THE" Jewish view in antiquity to say the prophecy referred to Hezekiah; 2) the passage was so unambiguous in their minds that they put "Messiah" smack-dab in their Aramaic paraphrase or Targum of the verse; and 3) your translation from Moffatt would not have been recognized as valid by Jews in antiquity who were not, as yet, motivated to deny Messianic predictions and/or keen enough to the usefulness of such a prediction for the followers of Jesus so as to trump up this kind of reading of the passage (for the purposes that Moffatt had in mind when he did so).
The fact is, when translators set out to translate the Old Testament, they do not consult Moffatt. In fact, were Moffatt to argue for his view, beyond being required to argue the point based on Hebrew grammar, he would have to and would appeal to ancient versions such as the Septuagint, the Targum of Isaiah, etc. to substantiate the legitimacy of his translation, assuming of course it could be justified by these standard procedures (which Anthony has shown is not the case).
Third, in contrast to the above where you have to IMPOSE the work of late anti-Trinitarians like Moffatt and anti-missionary Jews who were either so careless not to check or downright willing to deceive in order to RENDER a clear prophecy about the Messiah as ambiguous, you now forthrightly tell us, without us having to twist your arm or impose it on you, that Muhammad can only be found in the book of Solomon "beneath the layers," and that in a book that your brothers the world over don't tire of calling a book of porn.
So here is how it shakes out, Yahya: 1) the passage in Isaiah 9:6 is only ambiguous if you, biased translators and (some) post-Christian Jews are aloud to "pluck and twist" it; and 2) by your own admission SOS can only ambiguously be said to be about Muhammad, a fact you have said makes any would-be prophecy "unimpressive due to the ambiguity." Well, thank you. Consider me unimpressed with your attempt to refute Christianity and prove Islam.
Thumpety thump thump
@Frosty the Snowman
You said in response to my question regarding how you prove to Jews that Jesus is their messiah.
" No problem at all. I would point to the errors in the Hebrew Bible, some of the problems which seem to have been interpolations by scribes,"
Would that be the same Hebrew Bible you just appealed to, to show that Jesus is not the Messiah? Are you saying that Isaiah 9:6 has been corrupted by the "scribes" so that the prophesy is about someone else?
Or is Isaiah 9:6 not corrupt and the Jews are right that Jesus is not the Messiah?
however, since it has been shown that the passage does point to the Messiah and was understood as such by the ANCIENT Jews, are you saying the Jews corrupted passages like this and their very corruption of the text somehow accurately predicted the Messiah?
So which is it.
So those are your options on Isaiah 9:6 or any other Prophesy in the OT regarding Jesus.
Is the Zionist Anti-Missionary Rabbinical Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 9:6 correct, there by Jesus is not the Jewish Messiah?
Is Isaiah 9:6 not corrupt, and the Christian interpretation is correct and Jesus is the Jewish Messiah? Meaning your own original copy and paste job was a wate of time.
Or is Isaiah 9:6 a early Jewish corruption of the text that ends up being a prophesy about Jesus that also refutes the later Jewish view? That sounds like quite a miracle.
This goes for all Prophesys in the OT that Christians claim is about Jesus, and your Zionist ANTI Missionary Jewish friends deny.
You know, I used to think that Yahya was going to be an up and coming Islamic apologist. At least that is how he passed himself off. But lately as I have been reading his posts I have started to think he might be a plant or mole for some group that wants to make Muslims look stupid. I mean, just look at how he sets up snow-man arguments that are easy for Christians to melt down.
@Anonymous
Yes his lattes argument was like a snowman in winter, just a big puddle.
Hey anon,
Funny. I am hoping he will respond to the post on Answeringmusims.com. Now that he has been reduced to a puddle in the road, I expect the next time brother Rogers will drive through it like a Mac truck and create a giant splash.
Hey Anon we will have to wait until tomorrow since Snowman is off battling Jinns at the moment.
Speaking of which how do the Jinns know that the Snowman is sleeping?
His Bed is all wet :)
Well, since the Jinn are made of fire, I can't imagine the snowman would be much of a match against them.
Anon
Judging by his last argument, Yahya is like a snowman in the Tropics. He is just LOST
Hi Radical, nice of you to join the party. Be sure to watch your step, there is water on the floor. You might slip.
@Radical,
Yes the forecast is for more melting snow.
You guys are two funny
Do you think the snowman would be foolish enough to lay out and try and get a sun tan? Oh wait! I guess he already tried that.
After battling Jinns all night the Snowman is going to wake up with a case of frost bite.
Seriously, I think Yahya is too wet behind the ears to try to battle any Jinn.
I wonder if the Snowman chases the Jinns around on his ICE-cycle
No, he uses a snowmobile or a sleigh. You know what the Qur'an says, "sleigh" the unbelievers.
Did you hear why Snowman's wife got a divorce. She thought he was a real flake.
I was thinking his arguments are pretty flakey, so I know how she feels.
Yeah she really gave him the cold shoulder
by the way, anon....which wife were you talking about? Did all of them determine he was flakey? Also, do you know if they have any little snowballs rolling around?
Anon really can not say if the Snowman has any snowballs
It is better all around if there are no little snowballs rolling around out there. One is enough.
Well he definitely had to many frosted flakes for breakfast
Speaking of Frosted Flakes, his arguments are a paper tiger...easy to tear down.
Anon
Do you know if there are any pictures of the Snowman, does he have dark hair, is he blond, or a red head?
He is obviously blonde since his head is hollowed out.
Well I'm sure he wears a ice cap on his head.
Underneath his silk hat?
The Snowman has a sign in his ear, it says room for rent
I'm deeply unimpressed by the immature comments on here. Sad.
Oh, come on. You had a sense of humor when you saw Radical's rendition of Frosty the Snowman. We thought you had a funny bone.
@ann
I appreciate humour and wit just as much as you. However when it is used ina form which emanates malice and offensive sentiment towards one's religion then it is disturbing to say the least.
I don't mind the personal attacks - really, I'm an internet veteran now BUT keep remarks away from what is held sacred.
Peace
@Yahya Snow
"BUT keep remarks away from what is held sacred."
I didn't know that Snowmen were sacred in Islam. :)
My mistake: snowmen don't have bones.
Daily Mail--Al-Qaeda has launched a women's magazine that mixes beauty and fashion tips with advice on suicide bombings.
Dubbed 'Jihad Cosmo', the glossy magazine's front cover features the barrel of a sub-machine gun next to a picture a woman in a veil.
There are exclusive interviews with martyrs' wives, who praise their husbands' decisions to die in suicide attacks.
The slick, 31-page Al-Shamikha magazine - meaning The Majestic Woman - has advice for singletons on 'marrying a mujahideen'.
Readers are told it is their duty to raise children to be mujahideen ready for jihad.
And the 'beauty column' instructs women to stay indoors with their faces covered to keep a 'clear complexion'.
They should 'not go out except when necessary' and wear a niqab for 'rewards by complying with the command of Allah Almighty'.
A woman called Umm Muhanad hails her husband for his bravery after his suicide bombing in Afghanistan.
And another article urges readers to give their lives for the Islamist cause.
It advises: 'From martyrdom, the believer will gain security, safety and happiness.'
More traditional content for a women's magazine includes features on the merits of honey facemasks, etiquette, first aid and why readers should avoid 'towelling too forcibly'.
A trailer for the next issue promises tips on skin care - and how to wage electronic jihad. (Read more.)
Post a Comment