6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again. [Deuteronomy 13: 6-9 NIV]
So, according to Christianity, if somebody’s relative turns away from worshipping the Trinity and preaches the worship of “other gods” then they must be put to death. Thus meaning Christianity teaches the killing of ex-Christians who preach a different faith.
Fundamentalist Christians who stick by this teaching would support the killing of converts to Islam (from Christianity) who are currently preaching the worship of God rather than the trinity. Ex-Christian Muslim evangelists such as Yusuf Estes, Joshua Evans, Khalid Yasin, Dr Laurence Brown, Shadeed Lewis, etc. are all potential targets for fundamentalist Christians. Muslim brothers and sisters who are former Christians in America should exercise some caution as judging by the anti-Muslim vitriol stemming from American fundamentalist Christians there is no love nor concern for Muslims in their wicked hearts – their theology of Jesus ordering them to kill people who entice them away from Trinitarianism could well be used as a pretext to literally bash a few Muslims to death!
Destroy whole towns containing apostates
According to Christian theology Jesus orders the killing of all the inhabitants of a town where people have apostatized due to ‘troublemakers’ who preach other gods:
12 If you hear it said about one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you to live in 13 that troublemakers have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods you have not known), 14 then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, 15 you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely,[b] both its people and its livestock. 16 You are to gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt, 17 [Deuteronomy 13:12-17]
Christian apologists will say these passages are no longer in use and were limited to Israel. Perhaps Christians who believe these passages are still relevant today and not limited to Israel will be using these Bible references to crack a few ex-christian skulls...
Bigots in the churches who spend their efforts in attacking Muslims would do well to look into Christian theology and the Bible before they talk...
Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com
121 comments:
yahya said,
Perhaps Christians who believe these passages are still relevant today and not limited to Israel will be using these Bible references to crack a few ex-christian skulls...
I say,
Do you know of any Christians who believe that?
quote:
God was pleased do give the people of Israel ceremonial laws containing several typical ordinances. These ordinances were partly about their worship, and in them Christ was prefigured along with His attributes and qualities, His actions, His sufferings and His benefits. These ordinances also gave instructions about different moral duties. All of these ceremonial laws were appointed only until the time of reformation, when Jesus Christ the true Messiah and the only lawgiver, Who was furnished with power from the Father for this end, cancelled them and took them away.
To the people of Israel He also gave sundry judicial laws which expired when they ceased to be a nation. These are not binding on anyone now by virtue of their being part of the laws of that nation, but their general equity continue to be applicable in modern times.
end quote:
1689 LBCF
and
quote:
To them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any other, now, further than the general equity thereof may require.
end quote:
and
quote:
When the Gospel had been duly promulgated the civil and ceremonial precepts of the Law of Moses became not only useless, but false and superstitious, and thus forbidden.
end quote:
Catholic Encyclopedia
and
quote:
Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the Civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral.
end quote:
39 articles
I could go on but you get the point
peace
I forgot to say where this quote came from
quote:
To them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any other, now, further than the general equity thereof may require.
end quote:
Westminster Confession of faith
@FMM
Thanks for the interesting comment.
I did state the Christian apologist position on the said verses. Yes, Christians do not consider them binding on themselves BUT I have come across the Christian opinion that the OT laws are STILL relevant for Jews.
We must also remember the NT does teach all scripture is beneficial. What would be the benefit of these passages?
This is a good segway on to your question of whether I know of any Christians who believe these Bible passages to be relevant today. No, is the answer.
However, the OT is still part of the bible and if a Christian misses the interpretations cited by yourself then he/she can quite easily use such a verse to support such actions. Couple this with the Christian belief that all Bible verses are useful along with the view that the OT is still relevant for Jewish Christians then the idea of such Christians existing is very much a realistic proposition...
Thanks
What would be the benefit of these passages?
Among other things It would help to show us the seriousness of apostasy.
For us in the New Covenant the gravity of the situation is much greater because we are dealing in the spiritual realm instead of the physical world of Old covenant Israel.
Quote:
For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt. For land that has drunk the rain that often falls on it, and produces a crop useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed, and its end is to be burned.
(Hebrews 6:4-8)
End quote:
that is a much worse fate than mere physical death
You say,
the OT is still part of the bible and if a Christian misses the interpretations cited by yourself then he/she can quite easily use such a verse to support such actions.
I say,
Actually it is quite difficult to use these verses to support killing of apostates as witnessed by the fact that no mainstream Christians interpret the bible in this way.
It goes against the whole tenor of the New Testament revelation and makes Christ a false Prophet.
Quote:
Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world."
(John 18:36)
For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds.
(2 Corinthians 10:4)
But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
(Matthew 5:39)
End quote:
I hope you get the point
you say,
Couple this with the Christian belief that all Bible verses are useful along with the view that the OT is still relevant for Jewish Christians then the idea of such Christians existing is very much a realistic proposition
I say,
No Christian I know of Jewish or otherwise believes that the Old Covenant civil law is binding as written for anyone that is not living in the theocratic kingdom of Israel.
I would hope that you would in the future at least attempt to use Exegesis instead of just pulling verses out of their larger context to serve as prooftexts.
I know you would not like it if someone treated the Quran in this way
Peace
@FMM
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
What do you make of the argument that the teachings within the OT are valid unless Jesus specifically cancelled/abrogated certain laws. I find no cancellation of this law. When Jesus, according to the Matt 5:17-20, encourages his followers to observe OT laws to the letter this, according to Christian theology, would include the Bible passages concerning killing apostates.
Notice, according to the Gospel, those who follow the commands of killing apostates (see Bible verses cited) will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
I know you believe the OT to be abrogated but what of people who do not believe the same as you?
May I ask you for your Biblical justification in abrogating the OT laws such as chopping the hand of a woman who assists her husband against his assailant via a low blow, previously discussed here:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2011/08/christians-embarrassed-by-bibles-hand.html
FMM, I would like to ask how this verse is beneficial according to your reasoning. I understand your reasoning of the OT demonstrating the severity of apostasy – indeed apostasy is seen as severe according to Muslims too. But what of the hand chopping in Deut 25:11-12, what use does this teaching have today if it is no longer applicable?
@FMM continued...
You also cite Matthew 5:39 and 2 Corinthians 10:4. With particular attention to Matthew 5:39, what do you make of John MacArthur’s justification of war within the NT? Surely he is at odds with your view on violence and Matthew 5:39?
You also state:
No Christian I know of Jewish or otherwise believes that the Old Covenant civil law is binding as written for anyone that is not living in the theocratic kingdom of Israel
My response: OK, you do not know of any Christian who adopts such views but I have come across one in the past. Perhaps I can pull up his work and use it as the subject of a blog post in the future…inshaAllah (God willing).
You also state:
I would hope that you would in the future at least attempt to use Exegesis instead of just pulling verses out of their larger context to serve as prooftexts. I know you would not like it if someone treated the Quran in this way
My response: Yes, I would be upset if somebody missed the context of a Quranic Verse, this is evidenced in my rebukes of certain Christian missionaries on the net who either do it willingly or through their sheer negligence and/or disregard for accuracy.
Having said that, where have I ripped the Bible verses out of context? I have mentioned the apologist view of these verses being confined to Israel and abrogated. You have confirmed these verses relate to apostasy too. The main reason behind this post was to highlight the double standard of the anti-muslim Christians on the net who harass Muslims on the subject of apostates being put to death in Afghanistan. Pakistan etc. yet they are oblivious to the double standard they operate as Jesus (according to Christianity) supported the killing of apostates. Also, the concomitant view that people who preach other faiths are hindered in Islam is covered by the same Bible passages as Jesus (according to Christianity) supported the killing of those who preached ‘ other gods’ (i.e. other faiths).
Now I am asking for Bible proof texts you would cite to show these verses in the OT are abrogated. Do you have anything categorical?
PS I am not asking my questions aggressively, I am genuinely interested in exploring your views
Thanks
Hey Yahya,
You said,
Having said that, where have I ripped the Bible verses out of context?
I say,
The entire book of Deuteronomy is a covenant document.God is making a conditional covenant with the children of Israel as they prepare to take possession of the promised land .
God promises to bless them in the land he is giving them in exchange for their obedience to the commands he is enumerating .
It is impossible to understand the commands as separate from the covenant they are a part of
I could give you multiple quotes but this should get you started:
"And now, O Israel, listen to the statutes and the rules that I am teaching you, and do them, that you may live, and go in and take possession of the land that the LORD, the God of your fathers, is giving you.
(Deuteronomy 4:1)
"You shall therefore keep the whole commandment that I command you today, that you may be strong, and go in and take possession of the land that you are going over to possess, and that you may live long in the land that the LORD swore to your fathers to give to them and to their offspring, a land flowing with milk and honey.
(Deuteronomy 11:8-9)
If you obey the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you today, by loving the LORD your God, by walking in his ways, and by keeping his commandments and his statutes and his rules, then you shall live and multiply, and the LORD your God will bless you in the land that you are entering to take possession of it. But if your heart turns away, and you will not hear, but are drawn away to worship other gods and serve them, I declare to you today, that you shall surely perish. You shall not live long in the land that you are going over the Jordan to enter and possess.
(Deuteronomy 30:16-18)
End quote:
This old covenant with Israel ended because the people did not obey God’s commands and therefore Jesus instituted a new covenant. The laws of the old covenant did not change at all but they are not binding on those who are not a part of that old covenant.
You said:
Jesus, according to the Matt 5:17-20, encourages his followers to observe OT laws
I say,
He does no such thing. He commands his followers to observe “these” NC laws he is giving right now not “those” laws. (Verse 19)
You say,
I know you believe the OT to be abrogated but what of people who do not believe the same as you?
I say,
Again none of God’s laws are abrogated The OC laws are still in force for those in the OC.
If I ever came across someone who believes that the OC is still in effect I need only to point him to the Word of God.
Quote:
But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. For he finds fault with them when he says: "Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord.
(Hebrews 8:6-9)
In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
(Hebrews 8:13)
End quote:
Again I could post multiple quotes but I hope you get the point
But what of the hand chopping in Deut 25:11-12, what use does this teaching have today if it is no longer applicable?
I say,
Here is an excerpt from an commentary on this text to show you how we Christians make use OC scripture while not being bound by OC law
Quote:
Vers. 11, 12. An offending hand.
This maybe compared with Mat_5:30.
1. Any member of the body may become an instrument of sin.
2. Where there is in any case special danger there should a special watch be kept.
3. Favorite, yet sinful lusts must be crucified, whatever the cost may be.
Pulpit commentary
Notice how the spiritual principle of this text is carried over to the NC while the physical “letter” is left with the old.
I hope that helps
Peace
you said,
what do you make of John MacArthur’s justification of war within the NT? Surely he is at odds with your view on violence and Matthew 5:39?
I say,
I am unfamiliar with his views on the subject of NC war.
Can you point me to an article that explains what you are talking about
Thanks
Bismillahirrahmanirrahim
I found FMM explanation on so called New Covenant teaching is a mere way of innovating the orginal teaching preached to Abraham (p).
How can you validate this theology?
Are you saying that NC also cancelled the Ten Commandments?
Why can not God be so clear and consistent what HE wants regarding salavation?
For me Islam has made it easy. All the Books prior to the Quran have been corrupted and distorted by human hands, and muslims only to get their guidance from the Qur'an The last testament.
Wassalam
Eric said
How can you validate this theology?
I say,
The same way I validate all teaching, with Scripture. What I say is supported by multiple passages from both the old and new testament
You say,
Are you saying that NC also cancelled the Ten Commandments?
I say,
The NC cancelled nothing, All of the OC law is still valid and binding for those in the OC.
As for those of us in the New Covenant each of the Ten Commandments are repeated in the NC but given much deeper meaning
You say,
Why can not God be so clear and consistent what HE wants regarding salavation?
I say,
God has been clear and consistent the OC was never intended to provide salvation. The OC it was only a guardian to protect the people of God until the Messiah came.
You say,
For me Islam has made it easy. All the Books prior to the Quran have been corrupted and distorted by human hands, and muslims only to get their guidance from the Qur'an The last testament.
I say,
The problem with this approach is it cuts you off from God’s revelation.
You are left with no way to validate what Mohammad wrote.
You must accept on nothing but blind faith despite evidence to the contrary that although God was unable to preserve the word of any other prophet somehow Muhammad was different.
You must believe that although Muhammad message conflicts with all pervious revelation it is he that is correct and all other scripture is wrong.
Islam might seem simple to you but it is a very dangerous choice.
Simple does not equal true. in fact in life the simplest answer is often the wrong one.
You are betting your eternal destiny on a very thin reed IMHO.
Peace
Yahya said,
I am genuinely interested in exploring your views
I say,
I hope that is still the case. I love nothing more than explaining the Gospel to those who don’t understand it.
Please let me know if there is any question you have that I have failed to answer satisfactorily. Often in a forum like this things are missed unintentionally.
If you decide that you do not want to discuss the glories of the New Covenant that would be cool as well.
I fully understand that this sort on thing sounds like foolishness to those who are perishing so it would not suprise me a bit if you decide it's not worth your time to "explore my views"
Just don’t leave me hanging.
Peace
Bismillah walhamdulillah washalatu wassalamu 'alaa rasulillah
You maybe good in playing with words but all I see this is just a theological mumbo jumbo .
As regards the Law (or the Torah) what can't be more explict than this statement of Jesus (p)
‘Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfil. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.’
This clearly says that Jesus (p) is the fulfilment of the law and the prophets, that he was confirming the Mosaic laws and was defending such laws from distortion and misinterpretation.
Why innovate? Truth *is* simpe as God is not the God of confusion.
Prophet Muhammad (p) never said he brought a new covenant and abolished previous revelation. The muslims use the Quran as the criterion to show truth from falsehood, confirming the true original covenant that which was revealed before.
It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong) Q3:3
No, nothing dangerous. Iv choosen my eternal destiny wisely.
Within the line of monotheic tradition, it is Christianity which broke the ritual forms and sacred law of Judaism in favour of spiritual freedom and adventurism. We Muslim sees the matter that the divine purpose should be restored.
Islam came to restore the purity of the faith of Abraham, giving to Moses and to Jesus points of pre-eminence in it’s universe and seizing upon the quintessential nature of monotheism - single minded and worship of the One.
In Islam the idea that God must commit suicide before he can forgive us is blasphemous. Unworthy of a God of mercy and compassion.
Wassalam
Eric says,
As regards the Law (or the Torah) what can't be more explict than this statement of Jesus (p)
I say,
I agree but instead of supporting your position a proper reading of Matthew 5: 17-20 actually confirms mine completely and shows yours to be utterly with out warrant.
Lets look at it closely verse by verse
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
(Matthew 5:17)
This verse plainly says that Jesus is the fulfillment of the law and the Prophets. This is a constant theme in the NT Testament. The Law can not be understood properly unless you understand that it is really all about Jesus. Every word points to him and his Incarnation.
For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
(Matthew 5:18)
This is one of the most damming verses in the NT against Islam. It alone is enough to prove the Muslim belief that previous revelation is corrupted to be utterly false and contrary to scripture.
It’s Christians not Muslims who believe that not one tiny part of God’s OC Law has been abrogated but all of it is still binding for those in the OC.
Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
(Matthew 5:19)
Therefore-----because of this----- this is a very important word in the narrative it is meant to serve as a pivot point in the passage everything that comes after is because of what becomes before
Jesus now pivots from a discussion of the continued validity of OC commands to those in the OC to a introduction of “these” NC commands (verses 21:48) that he is now introducing for those bound for the Kingdom of Heaven instead of just the earthly country of Israel /Palestine
For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
(Matthew 5:20)
Jesus here makes it abundantly clear that terms of the NC are different and much more difficult than the terms of the old.
Scribes and Pharisees were the supper men when it came to obeying the OC law to the letter. Their entire lives were spent making sure that they obeyed even the smallest part of the OC law. They went beyond it’s requirements to the point of absurdity.
Yet Jesus says that the standard for admission into the NC is much greater for the NC than for the Old.
He begins to lay out his NC standard in verse 21 and ends with this stunning statement of what it actually takes to be a part of the New covenant
You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
(Matthew 5:48)
Nuff said
Peace
Ps I’m very busy now so I’ll respond to the rest of your statement latter
You say,
it is Christianity which broke the ritual forms and sacred law of Judaism in favour of spiritual freedom and adventurism.
I say,
This statement could not be further from the truth.
Even a quick glance at the Torah will show that it is rabbinic Judaism and Islam that have completely abandoned its overriding theme of bloody sacrifice as atonement for sin and it’s constant emphasis of the need for a mediator to stand between a Holy God and unclean humanity.
You have replaced these things with a mix of empty man made ritual and hypocritical public crypto piety.
Quote:
So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: "'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'"
(Matthew 15:6b-9)
end quote:
you say,
Islam came to restore the purity of the faith of Abraham,
I say,
Again these are the same empty claims that are made by every sect of would be restorationists from the Mormons to the Bahá'í Faith.
The problem is since you have cut yourself off from previous revelation you have no standard by which to validate your claim it’s just your word against countless other religious inovators who make the same claim.
You say,
In Islam the idea that God must commit suicide before he can forgive us is blasphemous. Unworthy of a God of mercy and compassion.
I say,
Again the fact that your god’s holiness is so unimportant to him that he can abide the presence of unclean sinners with no atonement is proof that Islam has no relationship to the religion of Abraham
Peace
Eric said,
You maybe good in playing with words but all I see this is just a theological mumbo jumbo .
I say,
I can’t believe you would say I’m good with words my spelling is terrible and my grammar is worse.
But I understand why my comments would sound like mumbo jumbo to you
Quote:
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
(1 Corinthians 2:14)
End quote:
you say,
Why innovate? Truth *is* simple
I say,
So is falsehood.
Simplicity is not the criteria by which truth is judged scripture is.
You say,
as God is not the God of confusion.
I say,
I agree God is not the author of confusion. The Gospel is not confusing but it is difficult for the carnal mind to understand. that is because they don’t have ears to hear it.
You say,
Prophet Muhammad (p) never said he brought a new covenant and abolished previous revelation. The muslims use the Quran as the criterion to show truth from falsehood, confirming the true original covenant that which was revealed before.
I say,
How do you verify this claim? To an unbiased observer it appears that Muhammad’s teaching contradicts and disregards all previous revelation and the Quran even abolishes some of it's own teachings.
You quoted:
It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong) Q3:3
I say,
Here we have a perfect example of what I’m talking about. We have the Gospel and the Torah we know what they say and the Quran does not confirm them it contradicts and disregards them
Bismillah walhamdulillah washalatu wassalamu 'alaa rasulillah
FMM, your reasoning failed to convince me, sorry.
Matthew 5:17-20 confirms the Old Testament.
In fact reading Matthew GOSPEL as a whole including the mt. sermon it emphashis maximum stress on following the Jewish Law.
You may innovate this and that but the fact remains Jesus (p) was a righteous prophet who observed every detail of the Law, and never say anything about atonement or his own death.
Jesus (p) is not abolishing the Law but *explaining* it (Matthew 5:43-48). Nowhere He categorically said anything about the New covenant.
This is example of Christian scriptural misinterpretation to inject the idea of false salvation.
Wassalam
Bismillah walhamdulillah washalatu wassalamu 'alaa rasulillah
FMM, you dont have the Gospel and the Torah we know.
We muslims use the Qur'an , as the furqan (criterion) as the criterion to show truth from falsehood, confirming the true original covenant that which was revealed.
تَبَارَكَ الَّذِي نَزَّلَ الْفُرْقَانَ عَلَى عَبْدِهِ لِيَكُونَ لِلْعَالَمِينَ نَذِيرًا
Blessed is He who sent down the Criterion (الْفُرْقَانَ) upon His Servant that he may be to the worlds a warner (Q 25:1).
- The Bible was not written in original Aramaic the spoken language of Jesus (p) there are always lost in tranlation
- Undeniable facts that modern scholarship confirms there are serious corruption in the Bible text we do have today
- Even so only small portion of the text attributed to Jesus (p)
I invite you to accept the Qur’an, the criterion, a revelation from Almighty God received directly to the man, which it claims to be. Inshaallah it will make easy for you to understand the Bible to cast doubt upon one part without impugning the rest.
Wassalam
Hey Eric
again I busy so I'll have to split up my reply
You said:
Matthew 5:17-20 confirms the Old Testament.
I say,
Of course it does who said otherwise. I’ve been saying all along that The Old Covenant is not abrogated it’s still binding for those who are in it.
You say,
In fact reading Matthew GOSPEL as a whole including the mt. sermon it emphashis maximum stress on following the Jewish Law.
I say,
I don’t know what you mean by maximum stress but even a cursory reading of Matthew will reveal that it puts the maximum stress on following Jesus. That is what the new covenant is all about.
Quote:
The young man said to him, "All these (commandments) I have kept. What do I still lack?" Jesus said to him, "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."
(Matthew 19:20-21)
End quote:
you say,
You may innovate this and that but the fact remains Jesus (p) was a righteous prophet who observed every detail of the Law,
I say,
Of course Jesus observed the OC law completely how else could he fulfill it for us.
You say,
and never say anything about atonement or his own death.
I say,
quote:
even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
(Matthew 20:28)
end quote:
I could give you others but you get the point
You said,
Jesus (p) is not abolishing the Law but *explaining* it (Matthew 5:43-48).
I say,
Is this how a Muslim interprets scripture. Simply replace Christ’s word “fulfill” with the completely different word “explain” and go on your merry way.
I know you would not like it if I treated the Quran with such disrespect.
You say,
Nowhere He categorically said anything about the New covenant.
I say,
I don’t know what you mean by “categorically” but this seems pretty clear to me
quote:
for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom."
(Matthew 26:28-29)
You say,
This is example of Christian scriptural misinterpretation to inject the idea of false salvation.
I say,
Simply claiming something does not make it so
I am only quoting whole passages of God’s word to you in context no interpretation necessary. If I’ve "interpreted" something incorrectly point out my error with scripture.
Peace
It doesn't matter what the NT says. The quran said it is unreliable, hundred of years before modern textual criticism showed beyond a shadow of a doubt that the text has been tampered with.
There are no first hand accounts of the events described. The gospels all draw on traditions about Jesus. We have no way of knowing whether these traditions come from eye witnesses.
lobo said,
The quran said it is unreliable
I say,
People say a lot of things
We can verify the New Testament by the Old Testament and visa versa and we can verify each individual book by all the others.
By what scripture can we evaluate the words of Muhammad to know if they can be trusted?
you say,
There are no first hand accounts of the events described. The gospels all draw on traditions about Jesus. We have no way of knowing whether these traditions come from eye witnesses.
I say:
The same line of reasoning applies in spades with the Quran and haddith yet you accept them as reliable. Why is that?
In fact according to scholars the textual and historical evidence for the Quran and haddith is much worse than that for the NT.
besides you can’t trust that Allah accurately preserved his word with the Quran because according to your worldview he has repeatedly demonstrated that he is unable or unwilling to do so.
If God allowed any of his scriptures to be corrupted then all of them are suspect.
On the other hand if God is willing and able to keeps his promise to preserve his Word forever Islam is false on it's face.
That puts you in quite a pickle IMHO
you say,
textual criticism showed beyond a shadow of a doubt that the text has been tampered with.
I say,
You keep saying that yet you have yet to present any evidence that the Bible has been corrupted.
If this has been "showed beyond a shadow of a doubt" such evidence should be easy to come by.
peace
Eric said:
We muslims use the Qur'an , as the furqan (criterion) as the criterion to show truth from falsehood, confirming the true original covenant that which was revealed.
I say,
All the wannabe restorer sects have their books to serve as a furqan of the Word of God what makes you any different than them.
By what infallible furqan do you judge the Quran? Since you have cut yourself off from God’s revelation you have no final standard besides your own likes and opinions.
You say,
- The Bible was not written in original Aramaic the spoken language of Jesus (p) there are always lost in tranlation
I say,
How do you know that Aramiac was the spoken language of Jesus? By what standard do you make such a claim.
You say,
- Undeniable facts that modern scholarship confirms there are serious corruption in the Bible text we do have today
I say,
I’ll ask you just like I asked Lobo. Why not present some of these “Undeniable facts”. So we can evaluate for ourselves just how undeniable they are.
You say,
I invite you to accept the Qur’an, the criterion, a revelation from Almighty God received directly to the man, which it claims to be.
I say,
Lots of books make this claim. By what infallible criterion can I evaluate what Muhammad says
You say,
It will make it easy for you to understand the Bible to cast doubt upon one part without impugning the rest.
I say,
You must think pretty highly of yourself to presume to be the judge of which of God’s words you accept and which you reject.
I would never presume to make such a judgment unless my standard was verified with somthing infallable.
Peace
@ FMM
And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man (Acts 9:7)
And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me (Acts 22:9)
Did those people who travelled with Paul hear the voice or not?
Abdul said:
Did those people who travelled with Paul hear the voice or not?
I say,
I’m not sure what this has to do with the NC or the viability of the Quran as a determiner of God’s Word but.....I'll bite
The text (in Greek) clearly says that those who were with Paul heard Jesus but did not understand what he was saying.
The Greek word that the KJV translates hear in these passages is akouō. It can mean either hear or understand depending on the contest.
This can be easily demonstrated by observing the following passage.
quote:
For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.
(1 Corinthians 14:2)
End Quote:
Here the very same Greek word akouo is translated understand in the KJV.
Sometimes the word can be translated "hear" and never the less give the meaning of understand as in this passage
quote:
And he said, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear."
(Mark 4:9)
end quote:
Jesus is obviously not concerned that his message will be missed because of lack of ears but instead he is saying that some folks will hear yet not really hear (understand)
In every day life we see this usage as well like when a friend says something across a crowded noisy room and you reply
“speak up I can’t hear you”
You hear him just fine but because of the noise you don't understand him.
Modern translations almost always render akouō in Acts 22:9 as “understand” instead of hear precisely because in modern English this secondary meaning of hear is not as common as it once was .
For example the ESV renders it
Now those who were with me saw the light but did not understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me.
(Acts 22:9)
Hope that helps
Peace
@ FMM
"The Greek word that the KJV translates hear in these passages is akouō. It can mean either hear or understand depending on the contest"
So to properly understand the New Testament a person should be able to fully understand Koine Greek, otherwise these verses will, quite understandably, look like a blatant contradiction...right?
Can you read and understand New Testament Greek?
Bismillah walhamdulillah washalatu wassalamu 'alaa rasulillah
FMM, you can have your own readings and deny the things I have presented from muslim understanding, it is your choice really.
Muslism believe the Bible we have now is not the inerrant and literal words of God and I am not trying to prove such a conclusion to you.
You can rely on your apologetics source and resort to clever use of verbal gymnastics can probably get around of Muslims arguments in support of your theological agenda but why Almighty God doesn't make Himself clearer?
He can have passage like:
"I am God so worship me and I will send my begotten Son which is also a God like me to be killed in the cross to wash away your sin"
You cited (Matthew 20:28) as a proof that the death of Jesus as an atonement, I dont think it is an explicit language to explain such an important tenet in Christianity, it is just too ambiguous (including Mark 15:39).
Why then we can't find similar language in Luke gospel?. It is generally assumed that Luke copied from Mark while he is writing his own gospel, something the author of the gospel himself suggests (Luke 1:1-3), why then Luke has not just failed to present an atonement understanding of the death of Jesus, he just seemed deliberately rejected such an understanding.
@ Erik
That would be one of the many issues that I have with Christianity and its belief system - it is too ambiguous, and this is illustrated only too well by the numerous sects and varying interpretations it has had since its inception.
A well as that a theology that allows Christians to believe that they can act with complete impunity in this life because they believe a man god was nailed to a cross - no matter what the sin, great or small, and no matter how many times they commit it there is no fear of punishment.
Bismillahirrahmanirrahim
"This is you keep saying that yet you have yet to present any evidence that the Bible has been corrupted"
Muslims are not in the business of finding Biblical corruption, just do a little Google search may help you find many Western scholars who did just that.
"In fact according to scholars the textual and historical evidence for the Quran and haddith is much worse than that for the NT"
On the contrary, there are many critical scholars who consider biblical texts are problematic, but it is not so with Quranic studies (which are mainly coming from evangelistic background which job is to discredit the Quran)
Abdul said,:
So to properly understand the New Testament a person should be able to fully understand Koine Greek, otherwise these verses will, quite understandably, look like a blatant contradiction...right?
I say
NO unlike the Quran the Bible is understandable in any language. Like any other text one must pay attention to context and be willing to do a little research no and again to make sure that one is not misunderstanding the authors intent.
You say,
Can you read and understand New Testament Greek?
I say,
No I can barely read English.
But I know how to spend five minutes to look a word up in a Greek dictionary and Concordance.
now a days this kind of research can be done online in about 30 seconds
Peace
eric said:
Why then we can't find similar language in Luke gospel?.
Perhaps because Jesus goes into even more detail about the atonement in Luke.
Quote:
Then he said to them, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
(Luke 24:44-47)
End quote
You say,
why then Luke has not just failed to present an atonement understanding of the death of Jesus, he just seemed deliberately rejected such an understanding.
I say,
Apparently you have never read Luke/Acts?
The message of the atonement is found everywhere in Luke’s writing.
peace
You say,
there are many critical scholars who consider biblical texts are problematic, but it is not so with Quranic studies (which are mainly coming from evangelistic background which job is to discredit the Quran)
This is just inaccurate.
Sure there is a lot more Scholarship dealing with the NT than the Quran this is because for the most part Muslims themselves are uninterested in historical scholarship when it comes to their Book .
But invariably when a scholar looks at the Quran using the same approach used with other ancient texts we find something like this from here
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=17859011&postID=7965857985310460134
Quote:
This is the first book-length examination of the kinds of textual variants one can observe in Qur'an manuscripts, and how these variants affect commonly held views on the transmission of the text of the Qur'an. Ahmed, for instance gives a very common view that the Qur'an's original text is preserved better than the NT because of oral tradition supplementing the written tradition. Actually the reverse is true. The NT is better preserved because of the written record that remains, even without an accompanying oral transmission.
My book challenges this normal Islamic views and concludes that the oral tradition actually complicated the textual history rather than simplifying it and preserving the original text.
Also,if the early Caliph Uthman performed the action on the text of the Qur'an that is attributed to him in Islamic tradition of establishing one text and destroying variant texts around 653 AD, then he cut off access to more original forms of the text of the Qur'an. One cannot recover the original text of the Qur'an from Islamic written or oral tradition or a combination of both. What one can achieve is a later revised version of a consonantal text that was officially standardized in the first Islamic century. Also, that particular consonantal text, over three centuries, went through a process of development and improvement so that it could phonetically reproduce just one form of the text. Before that, the text was recited in at least 50 different ways, because the ambiguity of the Arabic script allowed such diversity. Every time the written script was improved it provided a new platform for the development of additional oral traditions and discouraged the use of prior ones.
The challenge of textual criticism as applied to the Qur'an is to account for the plethora of factors, both intentional and unintentional, oral and written, that have made the text what it is today. It was produced over four centuries to read a certain way to bring political and religious unity in the midst of competing Islamic groups. There has consistently been more of an attitude of standardizing the text to a desired ideal, then preserving the most original forms of the text. Bart Ehrman's approach and conclusions actually fit the history of the Qur'an more than they do the New Testament, in my opinion.
Permit me to quote my own conclusion (p. 179):
'Though Muslims may take pride in the fidelity of the preservation of this text, it does not reproduce precisely what was originally considered to be the Qur'an in the early seventh century. Because of the standardizations of the text in 653-705/33-86 AH and 936/324 AH, together with the constant pressure throughout Islamic history to have one text match their dogma, many texts which had equally good claims to containing authentic readings were suppressed and destroyed. And, because of the emphasis on oral transmission and the vagaries of Arabic as it developed, the written text was constantly vocalized in new ways which did not preserve the original vocalization. The original vocalization must have been lost very early on if it did indeed exist. While bearing testimony to the careful preservation of one particular consonantal text, the history of the transmission of the text of the Qur'an is at least as much a testament to the destruction of Qur'an material as it is to its preservation. It is also testimony to the fact that there never was one original text of the Qur'an.'
End quote:
Keith E. Small
Abdul said,
That would be one of the many issues that I have with Christianity and its belief system - it is too ambiguous------and there is no fear of punishment.
I say,
Thank you for once again demonstrating that the real reason you reject the Gospel is because you don’t like it. It does not agree with your sensibilities.
When you set your own likes and opinions up as the criteria for what is acceptable revelation from God you put your self in God’s place.
This is a very dangerous thing to do.
PS
I think you will find that love and eminence gratitude is a much better motivator than fear of punishment. That Goes for all our relationships but especially our relationship with God.
Peace
@ FMM
"NO unlike the Quran the Bible is understandable in any language. Like any other text one must pay attention to context and be willing to do a little research no and again to make sure that one is not misunderstanding the authors intent"
No the Qur'an is entirely understandable in any language but a translation is just that - a translation - it is not the Qur'an.
The translations that we have of the Qur'an are superb and the meanings behind the verses are conveyed well without any contradiction caused by the process of translation - unlike your bible (which you just admitted).
I have never needed to go to an Arabic dictionary to understand the message of the Qur'an, and I have never heard any other Muslim say the same - now that indicates it's universality, wouldn't you say?
Perhaps you cannot understand the Qur'an because your mind has been cast adrift upon the turmultuous waters of Christian apologetics for too long? How could anything make sense?
And the word translated in Acts as 'heard' is the one that is predominant in most English language translations of the bible and it causes a serious contradiction in the text.
You have the internet FMM - what about all those, past and present, who do not?
Peace
@ FMM
"Thank you for once again demonstrating that the real reason you reject the Gospel is because you don’t like it. It does not agree with your sensibilities.
When you set your own likes and opinions up as the criteria for what is acceptable revelation from God you put your self in God’s place"
I think that you are confused - I mean no offence but you keep banging this same drum about other people setting themselves up as the sole arbiters of truth (when it comes to revelation) but yet you do exactley the same thing.
Who is right in their interpretation of Christian theology FMM?
Catholics? Eastern Orthodox? Anglicans? Lutherians? Presbyterians? Baptists? Pentecostals? Unitarians? Methodists? Quakers? I wonder what St Epiphanius would say about some of these huh? - I could go on, but I'm sure you get the idea.
What about issues of soteriology in Christianity?
I bet that you would also tell us that the earliest Christian understanding of atonement (ransom theory) is all wrong and that the Christians who believed this doctrine (that is, the majority of Christians during the religion's first one thousand year history) are to be discarded into hell along with all the others who happened to believe in an anthropomorphic deity (look into the writings of Augustine - he admits that many prominent Christian leaders believed such things).
It seems, ironically, that it is you FMM who in fact believes that they are the one who is privy to the 'truth' of the Christian message - it is your likes and dislikes (your sensibilities) that move you to interpret the Bible the way you do.
My overall point is that God is not the author of confusion. I reject the 'gospel' not because I don't like it but because, amongst other things, it does not form a coherent whole. It is not for no reason that Christianity has been so schismatic during it's lifetime.
Christianity has been built upon shaky ground. The proof is in the pudding as they say.
Peace
Bismillahirrahmanirrahim
@Abdul
Yes, Alhamdulillah, there are no ambiguity in the central tenets of Islam. The Tawheed, A clear command in absolute faith in One Almighty God and the fierce rejection of false gods and idols.
Alhamdulillah muslims read and memorize the Qur'an in the language unbroken the way when it was revealed.
I can recite on top of my head more than 20 short surahs the same way muslims all around the globe recite it.
Although Im not an Arab, it is my religious obligation that I must know how to read the
Quran in its original language.
A strong oral tradition ensure the preservation of the scripture
The Bible Christans have now in the state of being lost in translation. Not only that but what they have got isn’t in the original language and not the original copies, but copies of copies. So any true meaning has been lost in the deep past.
Bismillahirrahmanirrahim
@FMM
"...If God allowed any of his scriptures to be corrupted then all of them are suspect.
On the other hand if God is willing and able to keeps his promise to preserve his Word forever Islam is false on it's face. "
Why previous religions have been corrupted, and that is why we have a chain of revelation.
Ask yourself: why would God send another revelation if the preceding scriptures were still pure? Only if preceding scriptures were corrupted would God need to send another revelation, to keep mankind on the straight path of His design.
So we should expect preceding scriptures to be corrupted, and we should expect the final revelation to be pure and unadulterated. If impure, it too is due to be replaced, for we cannot imagine a loving God leaving us astray. What we can imagine is God giving us a scripture, and men corrupting it; God giving us another scripture, and men corrupting it again … and again, and again.
Until God sends a final revelation He promises to preserve (Q 15:9)
Bismillahirrahmanirrahim
FMM, who is this Keith Small? What make you think we will believe to his bias writings?
You better listen what Sir William Muir from University of Oxford have to say about the Quran:
"The recension of 'Uthman has been handed down to us unaltered. So carefully, indeed, has it been preserved, that there are no variations of importance, - we might almost say no variations at all, - amongst the innumerable copies of the Koran scattered throughout the vast bounds of empire of Islam. Contending and embittered factions, taking their rise in the murder of 'Uthman himself within a quarter of a century from the death of Muhammad have ever since rent the Muslim world. Yet but ONE KORAN has always been current amongst them.... There is probably in the world no other work which has remained twelve centuries with so pure a text."
[W Muir, The Life Of Mohammad]
The Qur'an relied above all on oral transmission. In the Islamic tradition, writing remained a secondary aid.
Muslims dont have problem with the Quran as you have problem with the Bible:
1. Quran has original copy ONLY in the original language dating to the time of the respective prophet or very close to his time.
2. The original manuscripts of the Quran do not contain any variances or contradictory accounts of the same events.
3. All verses in such Quran are accepted by the its followers
4. The Quran do not contain any errors pertaining to any subject in light of the used language, the traditions of the people of the time or the fulfillment of any prophecies in such books.
5. The Quran do have any doctrines that contradict its own contents.
6. The Quran include only the message of God only as conveyed by the respective prophets and not doctrines or teachings of humans who are supposed to be followers of the prophets.
7. The Quran call for the worship of God Almighty in simple and straight forward verses that do not require confusing explanation. It does not call for the worship of humans, idols or symbols in any form.
8. The Quran does not portray God as a racist or blood thirsty god and show God's love and mercy are for all who worhsip him alone and obey his commands.
You say,
why would God send another revelation if the preceding scriptures were still pure? Only if preceding scriptures were corrupted would God need to send another revelation, to keep mankind on the straight path of His design.
I say,
That is exactly my point God had no need to offer another revelation.
His written revelation “the Bible” is preserved for us to read and his Word “Jesus” is alive and ever present as a constant companion and guide.
Quote:
Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
(Hebrews 1:1-3)
End quote:
God does not have many revelations but one ever unfolding perfect revelation. To say that God’s perfect word can be corrupted is to say that God is not God.
You say,
What we can imagine is God giving us a scripture, and men corrupting it; God giving us another scripture, and men corrupting it again … and again, and again.
I say,
I can't imagine such a thing because I worship an omnipotent God
What a poor weak god you serve who must keep repeating himself because he is not able to keep men from corrupting his message.
You say,
Until God sends a final revelation He promises to preserve (Q 15:9)
I say,
Why should you believe you god will keep that promise seeing that acourding to you he could not keep these .........
And he established them forever and ever; he gave a decree, and it shall not pass away.
(Psalms 148:6)
For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
(Matthew 5:18)
Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.
(Matthew 24:35)
I will not violate my covenant or alter the word that went forth from my lips.
(Psalms 89:34)
The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.
(Isaiah 40:8)
Scripture cannot be broken--
(John 10:35b)
for "All flesh is like grass and all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls, but the word of the Lord remains forever." And this word is the good news that was preached to you.
(1 Peter 1:24-25)
Forever, O LORD, your word is firmly fixed in the heavens.
(Psalms 119:89)
I could go on but you get the point
Peace
@ FMM
"His written revelation “the Bible” is preserved for us to read"
Is that so?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44117239/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/scholars-seek-correct-mistakes-bible/#.Tk2IxmG1mSo
Think again
Peace
How do you suppose that these textual critics go about “correcting” the text?
It’s by looking to the best “preserved” manuscripts. If God did not preserve his word any talk of correcting the majority text would be impossible
Use your head man
Peace
Hey Eric,
Thank you for posting your list of reasons that you believe your Quran is better than God’s Word. Since your list is so long instead of responding in depth to each point I’ll just give you an “Off the top of my head” response to each one and let you decide which ones you want to try and defend.
You said,
who is this Keith Small?
I say,
He is the only scholar ever to compile book length research into the textual history of the Quran.
You say,
What make you think we will believe to his bias writings?
I say
Because you reject the Bible based on the biased writings of Atheists and Agnostics and non believers.
You say,
You better listen what Sir William Muir from University of Oxford have to say about the Quran:
I say,
Unlike you and Lobo I don’t put my trust in the testimony of any man scholar on not.
If you believe the Quran is better preserved than the NT please present your evidence not appeals to human authority.
You say,
The Qur'an relied above all on oral transmission. In the Islamic tradition, writing remained a secondary aid.
I say,
That is a major reason why it can not be trusted. Oral transmission leaves no evidence that can be evaluated and it is very subject to corruption and distortion just ask any one who has ever tried to relay a spoken message through an intermediary.
That is why we write stuff down
You say,
1. Quran has original copy ONLY in the original language dating to the time of the respective prophet or very close to his time.
I say,
Please point me to a manuscript from before the time of Ultman so I can verify this claim for myself .
You say
2. The original manuscripts of the Quran do not contain any variances or contradictory accounts of the same events.
I say,
Please point me to a few pre Ultman manuscripts so I can verify this claim for myself
You say,
All verses in such Quran are accepted by the its followers
I say,
Islam unlike Christianity is an instrument of the state . All those who disagreed with Ultman’s compilation were silenced and their competing Qurans were burned.
You say,
The Quran do not contain any errors pertaining to any subject in light of the used language, the traditions of the people of the time or the fulfillment of any prophecies in such books.
I say,
Of course you know that most people in the world would find this statement completely laughable
You say,
The Quran do have any doctrines that contradict its own contents.
I say,
Of course it does isn’t that what abrogation is all about.
You say,
The Quran include only the message of God only as conveyed by the respective prophets and not doctrines or teachings of humans who are supposed to be followers of the prophets.
I say,
How can you possibly know this?
Muhammad did not write anything down. It’s highly possible that all of the Quran is the doctrines or teachings of those who are supposed to be his followers
You say,
The Quran call for the worship of God Almighty in simple and straight forward verses that do not require confusing explanation. It does not call for the worship of humans, idols or symbols in any form.
I say,
1) Most non Muslims who I’m aware of find the Quran to be utterly incomprehensible.
2) I would say that what you Muslims do to the black stone and Muhammad is worship
3) It’s the Bible that limits Worship to the ONE and ONLY Triune God. Instead of an Anthromorphic weak deity with a deficient holiness and
You say:
The Quran does not portray God as a racist or blood thirsty god and show God's love and mercy are for all who worhsip him alone and obey his commands.
I say,
Of course you know that non Muslims disagree with this statement.
Peace
@ FMM
"It’s by looking to the best “preserved” manuscripts. If God did not preserve his word any talk of correcting the majority text would be impossible"
Talk about miss the point, so up and till this point you admit that Christians and Jews have been using an unpreserved scripture - one that has been tampered with either with intentional interpolations or through scribal negligence.
With this knowledge in mind it is more than fair to ask - How can we know that the oldest manuscripts being used in this project (Dead Sea Scrolls etc) are any more relable?
Therefore it is clear, to anyone looking objectively at the subject, that the Bible has not been divinely guarded throughout the 2000 year history of Christianity and Rabbinical Judaism - something that Muslims have known for centuries.
Again...
"His written revelation “the Bible” is preserved for us to read"
Not preserved intact though it would seem.
Use your head man
@ FMM
Erik - You better listen what Sir William Muir from University of Oxford have to say about the Quran:
FMM - Unlike you and Lobo I don’t put my trust in the testimony of any man scholar on not. If you believe the Quran is better preserved than the NT please present your evidence not appeals to human authority.
Would that be appeals to human authority like the example you just gave regarding that Keith Small fella?
Your inconsistency is incredible lol
@ FMM
Erik - who is this Keith Small?
FMM - He is the only scholar ever to compile book length research into the textual history of the Quran.
Perhaps you should read...
The History of the Quranic Text, from Revelation to Compilation: A Comparative Study with the Old and New Testaments By Muhammad Mustafa Al-Azami
Peace
Bismillahirrahmanirrahim
"Because you reject the Bible based on the biased writings of Atheists and Agnostics and non believers."
FMM dont seems to have adequate knowleadge in history, Sir Will Muir is not a muslim. , He is a western orientalist who was a profound Arabic scholar, and made a careful study of the history of Islam.
What about your Keith Small? He makes money from as a missionary apologist and evangelist to Muslims in the UK with Avant Ministries.
If one sincere enough to find truth about the Bible, their dedication to the truth is leading them away from the religion itself.
As in the case of renowned NT Scholar Mr. Bart Erhman. He move from devout evangelical at Moody, to a skeptic at Wheaton, to a critic at Princeton.
Abual said,
Perhaps you should read...
I say,
Perhaps I should of been more clear. Keith Small has written an book using the science of textual criticism to try and establish the original text of the Quran.
This is a far cry from an apologetic tome attempt at
quote:
“exploring many of the accusations levelled against it (the Quran).”
You can find lots of Christian Apologetic books that claim that the Bible is God’s holy perserved word. That is not the sort of thing I‘m talking about.
Don’t expect non Muslims to be impressed by a
Quote:
scholarly work composed in an impassioned tone
End quote:
Do you know of any Scholarly non Muslim works that deal with early Quranic manuscripts?
Peace
@ FMM
"Don’t expect non Muslims to be impressed by a Quote: scholarly work composed in an impassioned tone. End quote:
Do you know of any Scholarly non Muslim works that deal with early Quranic manuscripts?"
Didn't Erik just provide you with William Muir's quote from his - The Life of Mohammad?
Perhaps you forgot, here it is again (and bear in mind that Muir was quite critical of prophet Muhammad (saws) during his career - I think that he was actually a Christian)
"The recension of 'Uthman has been handed down to us unaltered. So carefully, indeed, has it been preserved, that there are no variations of importance, - we might almost say no variations at all, - amongst the innumerable copies of the Koran scattered throughout the vast bounds of empire of Islam. Contending and embittered factions, taking their rise in the murder of 'Uthman himself within a quarter of a century from the death of Muhammad have ever since rent the Muslim world. Yet but ONE KORAN has always been current amongst them.... There is probably in the world no other work which has remained twelve centuries with so pure a text."
Impressed?
Now I know what you are going to say regarding the Uthman recension but before we discuss this any further I would like to know whether you have read either Keith Small's - Textual Criticism and Qur'an Manuscripts or Muhammad Mustafa Al-Azami's - The History of the Quranic Text, from Revelation to Compilation: A Comparative Study with the Old and New Testaments?
More to the point, have you actually read any scholary works (Muslim or non-Muslim) on this subject?
Abdul,
Impressed?
No
I’ve already said that unlike Eric and Lobo and apparently you I'm just not impressed by the opinions of men on either side of this issue.
Men are always biased. Scholarship is always changing. New evidence is always comming to light.
I would much rather put my trust is something infallible and unchanging like God’s word.
If you want to argue that the Quran is better preserved than the NT present some real evidence like early pre Ultman manuscripts so I can compare for myself instead of just appeals to human authority.
We Christian’s are not shy about our early manuscripts they are readily available if you want to verify that a passage has not been changed.
Christians do this kind of thing all the time you just linked to an article about Jews doing the same thing.
We Christians even include textual variants in the footnotes of our Bibles.
Nothing secret nothing hidden and I don't have to take anybody's word for it.
You say,
bear in mind that Muir was quite critical of prophet Muhammad (saws) during his career - I think that he was actually a Christian)
I say,
Did he write any scholarly books on the textual history of the Quran? A paragraph or two with out supporting evidence is not going to convince anyone.
You said,
More to the point, have you actually read any scholary works (Muslim or non-Muslim) on this subject?
I say,
No, I could care less if the Quran was preserved or not. It is false because it contradicts God’s genuine revelation. End of story.
It’s not me who rejects God’s word based on the opinions of men it’s you guys.
I’m just pointing out that if you were consistent in your approach you would reject the Quran as well and the Bible.
That’s all
Peace
@ FMM
Me - Impressed?
FMM - No. I’ve already said that unlike Eric and Lobo and apparently you I'm just not impressed by the opinions of men on either side of this issue.
Well in that case stop citing writers like Keith Small to back up your position and present your own detailed analysis (like you keep demanding of everyone else).
If this is your position on scholarship don't enquire about the works of non-Muslim scholars either - it is inconsistent.
FMM - I would much rather put my trust is something infallible and unchanging like God’s word.
Me too, and I do - The Qur'an :)
FMM - We Christians even include textual variants in the footnotes of our Bibles.
Well let us all know when you have managed to sift the words of men from the word of God...2000 years and still waiting...
Peace
Bismillahirrahmanirrahim
"I would much rather put my trust is something infallible and unchanging like God’s word."
FMM, muslims recognize that Jesus(p)’ teaching is always consistent with the God's word teaching in the Quran.
It is Forgiveness of sins.
Paul, Calvin etc. and his followers (ie you) invented man made doctrines about God
Why an innocent person – Jesus (p)– was put to death for your sins, the innocent for the guilty.
This is contrary to divine justice and love.
Abdul said,
Well in that case stop citing writers like Keith Small to back up your position
I say,
The reason I brought up Small's work is to show you that if you judge the Quran by the standard which you use with the Bible your book comes out worse.
If you are going to reject the Bible based on critical scholarship you will have to reject the Quran as well. It's as simple as that.
If you continue to say the bible is corrupt based on the opinions of atheists and agnostics then I will continue to ask you be consistent.
You say,
and present your own detailed analysis (like you keep demanding of everyone else).
I say,
I’m not demanding any detailed analysis I’m only asking you to tell me by what infallible criteria you judge the Quran. A simple one word answer will do.
As for my criteria I judge the truth of any claim by it’s adherence to the infallable Word of God.
You say,
If this is your position on scholarship don't enquire about the works of non-Muslim scholars either - it is inconsistent.
I say,
It’s not inconsistent for me to ask you to be consistent.
You are the one who rejects the Bible based on the testimony of folks who don‘t believe it to be God‘s word . If you judge the Scriptures by this standard then in order to be consistent you must judge the Quran by the same standard.
This is not rocket science
You say,
Me too, and I do - The Qur'an :)
I ask yet again,
By what infallible criteria do you judge the Quran to be the word of God. Since you have cut yourself off from revelation you are left with nothing but your own likes and opinions
You say,
Well let us all know when you have managed to sift the words of men from the word of God...2000 years and still waiting...
I say,
The vast majority of the Bible is beyond dispute and there is no doctrine of Christianity that rests in any way on a textual variance.
If you think something in the scripture might be man’s word and not God’s it only takes a short time to find out for yourself. No sifting and no waiting necessary
I would be happy to discuss any variant that you like with you. It’s just a simple matter of looking at the evidence.
Peace
Eric says,
muslims recognize that Jesus(p)’ teaching is always consistent with the God's word teaching in the Quran.
I say,
Here is the problem with that claim.
We have a record of Jesus teaching and it completely contradicts the teaching of the Quran.
What you do is completely deny Jesus teaching and substitute the speculations of a man who lived hundreds of years and thousands of miles away from Jesus’ incarnation.
You say,
Paul, Calvin etc. and his followers (ie you) invented man made doctrines about God
I say,
I would be eternally grateful if you would show me a doctrine about God that I believe that is not based on his Word.
evidence would look somthing like this
FMM believes X.
The Bible teaches not X.
thanks in advance
You say,
Why an innocent person – Jesus (p)– was put to death for your sins, the innocent for the guilty.
I say,
The fact that you would even ask this question shows that you have never spent any quality time studying God’s word.
The concept of federal headship and vicarious atonement is taught on almost every page of the Bible beginning with Genesis and ending with Revelation.
Would you like me to point you to some passages to get you started?
You say,
This is contrary to divine justice and love
I say,
How so?
It seems to me that it is only contrary to Eric’s all to human sensibilities
Peace
Bismillah walhamdulillah washalatu wassalamu 'alaa rasulillah
"..How so?
It seems to me that it is only contrary to Eric’s all to human sensibilities .."
Yes according to my human sensibilities: scapegoating is not ethical.
All the justice system in the world and in a just society always believe that a person is responsible for their own sinful behavior, and not for the sins of others.
If a person commits murder, the state does not persecute that person's father, children, or neighbors.
"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin." Deuteronomy 24:16
Sin and the punishment for sin is not transferable from the guilty to the innocent.
You may found other examples in the Bible (OT/NT) to support your doctrines but I can easily ignore those along with other biblical events that are immoral by Quranic standards.
I invite you to Islam.
Why should you need an intermediary between you and God? And why would God demand the sacrifice of Jesus (p) when, according to Hosea 6:6, “I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.” Also in the New Testament: Matthew 9:13, Matthew 12:7.
Jesus (p) was unwilling to be sacrificed and was praying to be saved.
And He was saved (Q 4:157-158)
Alhamdulillah
All the justice system in the world and in a just society always believe that a person is responsible for their own sinful behavior, and not for the sins of others.
I’m not sure where you live but where I live
1) as a parent I am responsible for the actions of my minor children.
2) as a business owner I am responsible for the actions of my employees. (If a waiter at a restaurant fails to wash his hands and makes people sick I’m the one who pays a fine and gets sued)
3) As a leader I am held responsible for the actions of my constituents. If a privet citizen bombs a neighboring countries capital I can expect to face sanctions at the very least
I could go on but you get the point
You say,
You may found other examples in the Bible (OT/NT) to support your doctrines but I can easily ignore those along with other biblical events that are immoral by Quranic standards.
I say,
By what infallible standard do you determine that the Quran should overrule God’s revelation
you say,
And He was saved
I say,
of course he was saved we call it the resurrection
end quote:
Peace
Hey Eric,
Hey Eric,
Here are a couple of more examples for you
If my wife with out my knowledge uses our credit cards to run up gambling debts I am responsible to pay them or I will lose my house
If I’m driving the getaway car in a gas station robbery. And with out my knowledge or consent one of the members of my gang shoots the attendant I will get life in prison for murder.
It’s called federalism.
When a person is bound to another person by a covenant like in marriage or business then he not only receives the benefits of the other persons good fortune but also must often suffer the consequences of the other persons actions.
This is a basic concept in the law of all nations.
At the crucifixion Jesus is merely acting as the federal head for those of us who are bound to him in he New Covenant.
peace
Peace
Bismillahirrahmanirrahim,
FMM,
Let's make thing simple. I supposed you must have parents or kids
The oldest crime in history:
Thou shalt not kill. (Exodus 20:13; Q 17:33)
If you are proven guilty commiting murder, in your country, does the state sentence that your father, children, or neighbors (without any consent of the crimes) ?
You said,
Let's make thing simple.
I say,
Eric this is a important subject please don’t brush aside my comments so quickly. Do you understand and agree with the concept of covenats and federal headship?
You say,
If you are proven guilty commiting murder, in your country, does the state sentence that your father, children, or neighbors (without any consent of the crimes) ?
I say,
First of all exactly do you mean by with out consent of the crimes? I want to make sure I understand you
----------------------
My Father and Children and I have the same relationship to the state we are all citizens of the USA do you think that Jesus has the same relationship to the God Father as I do?
Please answer my questions I want to discuss this with you but I need to know we are talking about the same thing.
Peace
you say,
If you are proven guilty commiting murder, in your country, does the state sentence that your father, children, or neighbors (without any consent of the crimes) ?
I say,
Our relationship to God the father is not the same as our relationship to our "state" government.
The state is actually just the representative of the people as a whole.
On the other hand the Father’s relationship to us is that of Creator to creation.
Because Jesus is God’s son he has a inherent personal relationship with God that humans don’t have.
A so better comparison would be something like this.
The son of a very rich man invites his poor friends into his father’s house. The father comes home to find the place trashed.
Keep in mind the father does not have a personal relationship with his son’s friends his relationship is with his son.
Can the son be held responsible for the actions of his invited guests even if he did not partake in them?
Can the father ethically expect his son to pay for the vandalism?
Peace
FMM,
What you're saying is just nonsense. God knows our innermost intentions. If you're responsible for an act then you will be punished or forgiven. There's no need for an intermediary.
Human beings on the other hand have more blunt methods of judging culpability which is why a father can be held responsible for the actions of his son. Sometimes the father is indeed guilty, sometimes he's not only God can get it right 100% of the times.
Lobo says,
God knows our innermost intentions.
I agree never said otherwise. Intentions are not the issue
You say,
If you're responsible for an act then you will be punished or forgiven.
I say,
Again I agree.
the issue is not "will God forgive?"
The issue is how can a holy God forgive and still maintain his perfect justice and holiness
You say,
There's no need for an intermediary.
I say,
You do realize that the prophets are intermediaries.
If there was no need for an intermediary between God and man God would simply speak directly to everyone.
Instead God uses an intermediary who then relates God’s message to the world
You say,
Human beings on the other hand have more blunt methods of judging culpability which is why a father can be held responsible for the actions of his son.
I say,
If a minor son damages the property of a neighbor his father is responsible because his Father is the covenant head of his household.
The same way I am responsible for debts my wife runs up.
It has nothing to do with culpability it has everything to do with covenant.
I entered into a covenant to be bound to my wife as one flesh.
That means what is hers is mine that includes debt.
You say,
Sometimes the father is indeed guilty, sometimes he's not only God can get it right 100% of the times.
I say,
It’s not about guilt it’s about responsibility.
In the example I gave the rich man's son is not guilty of vandalism but he is responsible to pay for it
Peace
Bismi-llāhi r-raḥmāni r-raḥīm
"Eric this is a important subject please don’t brush aside my comments so quickly. Do you understand and agree with the concept of covenats and federal headship?"
No, if you are proven guilty for comitting murder, you dont need to worry that your dad, mom or kids which is nothing to do with it must be sent to prison in death row.
Not in my country, not in any country I know.
Using your reasoning, I will be very surprise if Anders Breivik's Dad, which was outspoken with his actions will be sentenced in Danish court merely because naturally he is bound to a covenantship with his son as dad-son.
FMM,
This is the problem with your dogma, you make things confusing.
and God is indeed not the author of Confusion...
Wassalam
"Using your reasoning, I will be very surprise if Anders Breivik's Dad, which was outspoken with his actions will be sentenced in *Danish* court merely because naturally he is bound to a covenantship with his son as dad-son"
Apologize, I should write *Norwegian* court
You said,
if you are proven guilty for comitting murder, you dont need to worry that your dad, mom or kids which is nothing to do with it must be sent to prison in death row.
I day,
Eric Again you are confusing the government of a country which is just the representative of the all the people of the country and with God who is the creator of the universe.
You say,
This is the problem with your dogma, you make things confusing.
I say,
It’s not confusing at all.
The problem is that you have rejected God’s revelation and therefore you do not know the way that God deals with mankind.
Instead you are forced to look at the way that mankind deals with itself
When we look at the way God deals with man kind in scripture over and over we see the principal of federal headship.
Adam sins and his descendants also suffer the consequences
Noah finds Grace in the eyes of the Lord and his family receives the benefit by being saved from the flood
Abraham is considered righteous and it’s his decedents who are given the benefits of the land
God does not destroy the children of Israel when they build the golden calf because of his love for Moses
God delays his punishment of Israel because of his covenant love of David
Although Daniel is righteous he is sent into exile right along with the rest of sinful Israel because he is covenantal linked with them.
It happens over and over like this in Scripture but you miss it because you ignore what the Prophets say.
and instead look to what the goverment of Noraway will do.
Peace
eric said,
I will be very surprise if Anders Breivik's Dad, which was outspoken with his actions will be sentenced in Danish court merely because naturally he is bound to a covenantship with his son as dad-son.
I say,
Actually Breivik’s dad is not in covenant with his son any longer because his son is of age.
Even if there existed a covenant bond between these two the father in this case being also a fallen human is not innocent so his punishment would not be able to compensate for the son's pardon.
Peace
@ FMM
"In the example I gave the rich man's son is not guilty of vandalism but he is responsible to pay for it"
Okay, taking your example as a template, let us assume for a second that this father is not just a rich man but also the king of that country (or world). This particular king is known for his holiness, justice and merciful nature.
The son (or prince), like you say, is in this father/son/monarchical covenant. The son shares a level of culpability in what has happened to the kings palace due to his negligence. However, the population of the kingdom are also in a covenant with this king, so in this case all involved have transgressed.
Now, for the king to only punish his son and allow the poor (peasant) friends to go unpunished would be not only an injustice, but it would also send out a message that the king allowed his subjects to get away with crimes against his kingdom - and this will not do otherwise there would be anarchy.
The king, if he is just, will look to each individual and then call them up to answer in a court of law.
Now each individual person is called up and faces the charges against them. Of course some are more guilty than others as some have played a greater role in the vandalisation.
Amongst this group of vandals are some who are genuinely repentant and acknowledge this monarchs absolute authority - they plead for mercy and because they are genuine, and because the king sees their weakness for what it is - a lack of the qualities that he possesses naturally, he decides to be merciful and pardons them on condition that they intend to live the proper way (his way) and no longer trangress his laws.
Another group, however, decides that it will not acknowledge their king as ruler and believes wholeheartedly that no transgression has taken place for them to be punished. The unrepentant group faces the king with this attitude and the king rightly decides that for the peace of the kingdom and for the sake of justice these peasants must be punished.
The issue is not about payment for the restoration of the palace as this king has an infinite treasury anyway - it is about how each individual relates to their lord and king (son included) and in turn how that attitude (good or bad) manifests through the kingdom's subjects as a whole.
Bismillahirahmanirrahim
"The problem is that you have rejected God’s revelation and therefore you do not know the way that God deals with mankind"
FMM, No I have been faithful to God Almighty as the Quran is perfectly clear about this: God is NOT under any compulsion to punish or forgive any particular individual.
It is you that have rejected God’s revelation and follow instead made doctrines about God…
He is free to do as he wishes.
You however believe that God is compelled to punish people – even to the extend of punishing the innocent for others crimes ie Jesus (p).
Jesus (p)’ teaching is consistent with the God's Word in the Quran about forgiveness of sins. if someone repents of a sin then God would not punish them.
God will show mercy to whomsoever He wills. Why do you find that so hard to accept?
This is a real forgiveness.
Oddly, this concept (of a merciful God) appears to be alien to your theology.
Jesus(p) illustrates in Luke 15 that God is not forced to punish all sin. Jesus taught that God is merciful and has compassion on those who repent and return to Him.
This is what merciful/compassionate God that the word of God in the Quran teaches.
Hey Abdul
Thank you for taking the time to actually discuss this with me. It says something about your character that you did not dismiss my comment the way that others have.
You say,
However, the population of the kingdom are also in a covenant with this king, so in this case all involved have transgressed.
I say,
God is not like an earthly king. I agree that an earthly king is automatically in covenant with his subjects because an earthly king is just the representative of the people as a whole.
However God is not like that. His only natural relationship with mankind is that of creator to creation.
Any covenant relationship between God and Man has to be based on God’s gracious condescension to us. In a covenant each party has obligations and responsibilities. God is under no obligation to us for anything.
That is why I the father in my story was not a king but a very rich man.
The poor friends in my example have no personal relationship, covenant or otherwise with the father. It is the son who is in covenant with him. The rich father in my example can call the police on the poor friends or he can choose to look the other way it is totally up to him.
But what he can’t do is allow his house to be carelessly trashed with out someone paying for it and expect anyone to respect him.
You say,
The issue is not about payment for the restoration of the palace as this king has an infinite treasury anyway - it is about how each individual relates to their lord and king (son included) and in turn how that attitude (good or bad) manifests through the kingdom's subjects as a whole.
I say,
No the issue is about how the Rich man relates to the friends of his son.
Does he allow his son to compensate for their vandalism or charge them with a debt that is impossible for them to pay?
Peace
you say,
God will show mercy to whomsoever He wills. Why do you find that so hard to accept?
I say,
I don't find it hard to accept it is the core of my Theology.
However inorder for God to maintian his perfect holyness he can't let sin go unpunished.
mercy inorder to be real has to cost somthing.
A rich man who does not expect someone to pay for the vandalism on his house is not showing mercy
He is showing that he does not value his stuff.
peace
abdul says,
Jesus(p) illustrates in Luke 15 that God is not forced to punish all sin.
I say,
on the contary
In the story of the prodigal son the father and the fatted calf pay for the son’s transgression.
peace
Hey Abdul
I just realized that you might not fully understand my example and this might explain how you answered like you did
You said,
The issue is not about payment for the restoration of the palace as this king has an infinite treasury anyway
I say,
The palace in my example was not intended to be a metaphor for the physical world. It is a metaphor for God’s law.
We have shown no respect for Gods we have broken it and treated it like it was of no value.
God might have an infinite treasury of physical possessions. His law on the other is the equivalent of his nature. He only has one Law because he only has one nature.
He can not allow his holy Law to be trashed with impunity and still be a holy God.
Peace
@ FMM
"Thank you for taking the time to actually discuss this with me. It says something about your character that you did not dismiss my comment the way that others have"
Thank you, I do appreciate your kind words. Interfaith dialogue is important and we must always try our best to be courteous and do our upmost to try and understand each other's position. Again, thankyou.
"God is not like an earthly king. I agree that an earthly king is automatically in covenant with his subjects because an earthly king is just the representative of the people as a whole.
However God is not like that. His only natural relationship with mankind is that of creator to creation"
And yet throughout the scriptures and popular writings associated with Judaism, Christianity and Islam, God is, to a great degree, portrayed in terms of kingship - Kingdom of God/Heaven, Throne imagery etc
Of course He is also recognized as Creator and Sustainer of creation but the way He has chosen to identify Himself to us is as a Sovereign Ruler which resonates on levels that all people are capable of understanding.
A believer in God also understands (or should) that God is not like an human king but that His majesty transcends this earthly archetype. However, this is how He has, repeatedly, revealed Himself to us and there must be good reasons for this. I wouldn't be inclined to dispute this.
"Eric Again you are confusing the government of a country which is just the representative of the all the people of the country and with God who is the creator of the universe"
I see this with you again and again FMM. Whenever your comparison breaks down, or fails, you default by stating that God is 'not like that'. So when you talk about God and the justice of God in terms of federalism you are equating the Justice of God with the punishment enacted by the 'state' - there is no way of avoiding this as a logical conclusion to your comparision.
You do it again here...
"Our relationship to God the father is not the same as our relationship to our "state" government.
The state is actually just the representative of the people as a whole.
On the other hand the Father’s relationship to us is that of Creator to creation"
Like we need reminding of this. Are citizens not automatically in a covenant with the country that they are born into (ie they must obey the law and not transgress the norms and values of that society)? Is it not the state that punishes those that do not obey the law of the land?
Either way, the more that I ponder upon your analogies the more problems I see with them (unnecessary problems at that).
No disrespect, but I believe that God when described as Supreme Monarch allows for far better insights into His nature, especially in relation to His justice.
You say,
And yet throughout the scriptures and popular writings associated with Judaism, Christianity and Islam, God is, to a great degree, portrayed in terms of kingship - Kingdom of God/Heaven, Throne imagery etc
I say,
God is portrayed as King of his people but Satan is portrayed as Ruler of the unbelievers. (john 16:11 etc)
You say,
Whenever your comparison breaks down, or fails, you default by stating that God is 'not like that'.
I say,
That is because God is not like his creation so analogies always fall short
You say,
So when you talk about God and the justice of God in terms of federalism you are equating the Justice of God with the punishment enacted by the 'state' - there is no way of avoiding this as a logical conclusion to your comparision.
I say,
It was Eric who went down the path of comparing God to the state when he said,
Quote:
All the justice system in the world and in a just society always believe that a person is responsible for their own sinful behavior, and not for the sins of others.
If a person commits murder, the state does not persecute that person's father, children, or neighbors.
End quote:
I was just showing him that his impression was incorrect and that in society often federalism demands that a non guilty party is responsible for another’s behavior
Peace
@ FMM
Of course analogies breakdown, but my point is that when your examples breakdown, either due to glaring contradiction or the fact that you have stated something that is nigh on impossible to reconcile with the nature of God, you default by highlighting the flaw in using such analogies (we get it - these comparisons can only stretch so far).
"The palace in my example was not intended to be a metaphor for the physical world. It is a metaphor for God’s law"
Yes but the transgression of God's law leads to wickedness and iniquity prevailing over the earth - something that we as Muslims should not be resigned to.
"I was just showing him that his impression was incorrect and that in society often federalism demands that a non guilty party is responsible for another’s behavior"
You, however, were trying to equate this model with Divine justice. We are talking here about ultimate justice - the justice of God. Federalsim can demand all it wants of a non guilty party but this is never justice.
We believe that in the end we stand before God, our lives laid out in full, taking full responsibility for our actions - but God is merciful and recognizes our weakness. What He wants is for us to return to Him with a truly repentant heart - forgiving and showing us mercy in no way compromises His Holiness.
If you believe this by all means try and explain to me why it must be so.
And also while you're at it, try and explain this to me:
How can it be that if God is so Holy that He cannot, by His very nature, be in such close proximity to sin or cannot tolerate sin in any way, shape or form - how is it that He decided (in your opinion) to incarnate into the body of a Jewish man in 1st century Palestine and mingle with some of its most iniquitous denizens
?
If you start out with a set of false axioms (which I believe Christians on the whole do) then you can only be wrong footed throughout your entire spiritual life journey.
Peace
@ FMM
Just to clarify - I don't think what I posted was clear enough.
What He wants is for us to return to Him with a truly repentant heart - forgiving and showing us mercy in no way compromises His Holiness.
If you believe that this does compromise His Holiness by all means try and explain to me why it must be so.
Peace
You say,
you default by highlighting the flaw in using such analogies (we get it - these comparisons can only stretch so far).
I say,
I tell you what. Agree to listen to the Word of God and I won’t be forced to use imperfect analogies to explain the things of God to you.
You say,
You, however, were trying to equate this model with Divine justice. We are talking here about ultimate justice - the justice of God. Federalsim can demand all it wants of a non guilty party but this is never justice.
I say,
How can you possibly say this,
even a cursory scan of scripture shows that Divine justice is almost always carried out in association with the concepts of covenant and federalism.
I can give you dozens of examples if you like.
The problem is you are defining what Divine justice is instead of letting God do it.
You say,
What He wants is for us to return to Him with a truly repentant heart -
I say,
I agree but scripture is clear that humans are incapable of true repentance with out supernatural intervention from God
Quote:
Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil.
(Jeremiah 13:23)
End Quote:
I can go into more detail about why this is so if you like
You say,
forgiving and showing us mercy in no way compromises His Holiness.
If you believe that this does compromise His Holiness by all means try and explain to me why it must be so.
I say,
Hear the word of the Lord........
'The LORD is slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, forgiving iniquity and transgression, but he will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, to the third and the fourth generation.'
(Numbers 14:18)
For God to clear the guilty is to say that violating his law is no big deal.
That is the very definition of compromising his holiness
You say,
how is it that He decided (in your opinion) to incarnate into the body of a Jewish man in 1st century Palestine and mingle with some of its most iniquitous denizens
I say,
That body was perfect it had no taint of sin.That is what the immaculate conception is all about.
Therefore God could incarnate in it. the same way he can cummune with those of us who are rendered perfect by means of our relationship with Christ.
As far as his mingling with sinners that is part of the terrible suffering Jesus endured in our place and for our sake.
The presence of sin is a big part of what makes hell such a bad place.
Peace
Bismi-llāhi r-raḥmāni r-raḥīm
"However inorder for God to maintian his perfect holyness he can't let sin go unpunished"
FMM, your understandings of salvation left no room for divine forgiveness.
Offering of a sufficient sacrifice, is not forgiveness, but merely an acknowledgement that the debt has been paid in full.
If you look at the genuine teaching of Jesus (p) there is genuine divine forgiveness for those who are truly conscious of their utter unworthiness.
Say: 'O My servants who have transgressed against your own souls:
do not despair of God's mercy,
for God forgives all sins.
It is He who is the Forgiving, the Merciful.'
(Q39:53)
Like in the Lord’s Prayer where people are taught to address God directly as our heavenly Father and to ask for forgiveness for our sins, expecting to receive this, the only condition being that we in turn forgive one another.
Wassalam
Bismi-llāhi r-raḥmāni r-raḥīm
"on the contary
In the story of the prodigal son the father and the fatted calf pay for the son’s transgression."
FMM, sorry to say, you have developed a habit of making long irrelevant comment but missing the point
It is out of your innovated belief that that you see this story as the father and the fatted calf pay offering for transgression, it is meant for thanksgiving and celebration.
Jesus (p) illustrates in Luke 15 that God is not forced to punish all sin. Jesus taught that God is merciful and has compassion on those who repent and return to Him.
The father, when he sees his penitent son returning home, does not say, ‘Because I am a just as well as loving father, I cannot forgive him until someone has been duly punished for his sins’, but rather he ‘had compassion, and ran and embraced him and kissed him. And the son said to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.”
But the father said to his slaves, “Quickly, bring out a robe—the best one—and put it on him; put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. And get the fatted calf and kill it, and let us eat and celebrate; for this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found!” (Luke 15. 20-24)
And again, in the story of the Pharisee and the tax collector, the latter, ‘standing far off, would not even look up to heaven, but was beating his breast and saying, “God, be merciful to me, a sinner!” I tell you, this man went down to his home justified’ (Luke 18. 13-14).
And yet again, there is his insistence that he came to bring sinners to a penitent acceptance of God’s mercy: ‘Go and learn what this means, “I desire mercy, not sacrifice.” For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners’ (Matthew 9.13).
Islam teaches that human nature as basically good and yet with an evil inclination that has continually to be resisted.
Alhamdulillah, God (Allāh a-raḥmān ar-raḥīm -the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful) is aware of our finitude and weakness, and is always ready to forgive the truly penitent.
There is no need for a mediator between ourselves and God or for an atoning death to enable God to forgive.
Wassalam
eric said,
It is out of your innovated belief that that you see this story as the father and the fatted calf pay offering for transgression, it is meant for thanksgiving and celebration.
I say,
who payed for the thanksgiving and celebration?
quote:
And the younger of them said to his father, 'Father, give me the share of property that is coming to me.' And he divided his property between them. Not many days later, the younger son gathered all he had and took a journey into a far country, and there he squandered his property in reckless living.
(Luke 15:12-13)
end quote:
The son had squandered his inheritance.
The father was a poorer man than he would have been if the son had never left.
Sin demands it’s wages they must be paid by somebody.
The celebration was a unique extravagance that was paid for at the expense of the entire families net worth.
The father was not wrong for killing the fatted calf but the fatted calf was not free
It’s your low view of the law that keeps you from seeing that.
Peace
You say,
There is no need for a mediator between ourselves and God,
I say,
Then why does God send prophets. If we did not need a mediator he would just speak to us directly
You say,
or for an atoning death to enable God to forgive.
I say,
this shows that you have never even read the Torah.
And the bull for the sin offering and the goat for the sin offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the Holy Place, shall be carried outside the camp. Their skin and their flesh and their dung shall be burned up with fire.
(Leviticus 16:27)
And this shall be a statute forever for you, that atonement may be made for the people of Israel once in the year because of all their sins." And Moses did as the LORD commanded him.
(Leviticus 16:34)
peace
Bismi-llāhi r-raḥmāni r-raḥīm
“Then why does God send prophets. If we did not need a mediator he would just speak to us directly “
FMM, let me state it again
There is no need for a mediator between ourselves and God or for an atoning death *to enable God to forgive.*
God sent prophets to spread the messages of God to people and give examples how to live by law but people is free to do as their wishes. They can live righteous and can do sin.
But if they trully repents of a sin (directly to God) then God would not punish without the need to reprisal.
God is NOT under any compulsion to punish or forgive any particular individual.
You however believe that God is compelled to punish people – even to the extend of punishing the innocent for others crimes ie Jesus (p).
“this shows that you have never even read the Torah”
FMM, The Levitical Law of Sacrifice tell us about animal sacrifices.
But God wants righteousness and repentance, not sacrifice (Deuteronomy 4:27-31 , 1 Samuel 15:22, Psalms 51:17, Hosea 6:6.
Also contrary to your innovated belief, charitable deeds צְדָקָה (tsedaqah),or صَدَقَةٌ (shodaqah) as in Quranic terminology serve as the most important component in the process of atonement in the Torah.
The Torah recognizes that by exercising his or her free will, a person has the ability to commit iniquity. But one can achieve salvation by righteousnesness that is contrite repentance and prayer, and good deeds.
FMM, please read the Torah right.
Wassalam
Bismi-llāhi r-raḥmāni r-raḥīm
“The son had squandered his inheritance.
The father was a poorer man than he would have been if the son had never left.
Sin demands it’s wages they must be paid by somebody.”
FMM, the son have sinned but when the father, when he sees his penitent son returning home,he does not say, ‘because I am a just as well as loving father, I cannot forgive him until someone has been duly hanged for his sins.
Instead he ‘had compassion, and ran and embraced him and kissed him.
And then went the celebration.
FMM, that’s the lesson, It’s your misguided view of the law that keeps you from seeing the true message of God's Word.
Wassalam
You said,
But God wants righteousness and repentance,
I say,
Of course God "desires" righteousness and repentance I never said otherwise that does not change the fact that God's wrath must have propitiation…..
quote:
Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.
(Hebrews 2:17)
end quote:
You say,
not sacrifice
The Word of God says,
Fools mock at the guilt offering, but the upright enjoy acceptance.
(Proverbs 14:9)
He shall lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.
(Leviticus 1:4)
You say,
But one can achieve salvation by righteousnesness that is contrite repentance and prayer, and good deeds.
The Bible says,
Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.
(Hebrews 9:22)
Then he shall offer the second for a burnt offering according to the rule. And the priest shall make atonement for him for the sin that he has committed, and he shall be forgiven.
(Leviticus 5:10)
For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life.
(Leviticus 17:11)
And the priest shall make atonement for him before the LORD, and he shall be forgiven for any of the things that one may do and thereby become guilty."
(Leviticus 6:7)
You say,
that’s the lesson,
I say,
The lesson is about God’s love for prodigals. That’s all
It has nothing to say about atonement one way or the other.
You have introduced a completely foreign concept to the parable and in the process missed the whole point
It would be like me saying the story about the good Samaritan is really all about the truth of the Samaritan religion.
You say,
It’s your misguided view of the law that keeps you from seeing the true message of God's Word.
I say,
What you call the “true message” is the same sort of secret hidden code that the Gnostics saw under every rock.
No offence but claiming to have secret access to the "true message" of scripture and at the same time rejecting every single book of God‘s word rings a bit hollow.
Peace
Bismi-llāhi r-raḥmāni r-raḥīm
"I say,
The lesson is about God’s love for prodigals. That’s all
It has nothing to say about atonement one way or the other. "
FMM, it is obvious that this lesson is about the free forgiveness of God towards repentant sinners.
There is no need for a human sacrifice to forgive our sins (nor the blasphemous version of God need to killl himself).
Here’s another conversation from Mark 10
As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.
You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother’
“Teacher,” he declared, “all these I have kept since I was a boy.”
Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
So the man could achieve salvation without Jesus dying for his sins.
Alhamdulillah. Now you get the point.
Wasssalam
Bismi-llāhi r-raḥmāni r-raḥīm
"...What you call the “true message” is the same sort of secret hidden code that the Gnostics saw under every rock.
No offence but claiming to have secret access to the "true message" of scripture and at the same time rejecting every single book of God‘s word rings a bit hollow... "
FMM, No offence, for those who are just untutored in Scripture can be easily lured into accepting your man-made doctrines out of blind faith.
It is you wich claim the Bible we have now is the infallible "Word of GOD" is following a hollow religion.
Sins can be forgiven through sincere repentance and a firm resolution never to repeat them.
Psalms 51:19
The sacrifices [acceptable to] God are a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart, O God, You will not despise.
I Samuel 15:22
And Samuel said: "Does the Lord delight as much in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obedience to the voice of the Lord? Behold, obedience is better than any sacrifice, and to comply [is better] than the fat of rams."
Jeremiah 36:3
Perhaps the House of Judah will hear all the evil I [God] intend to do to them, so that everyone may turn from his evil way and I may forgive their iniquity and sin.
Ezekiel 33:11
"As I live," says the Lord, God, "I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn, turn from your evil ways, for why should you die, O House of Israel?"
Hosea 14:3
Take with you words, return to the Lord; say to Him: "Forgive all iniquity, accept that which is good; and we will offer the words of our lips instead of bullocks."
Alhamdulillah. Now you get the point.
Wassalam
Eric
What’s with you and finding secret meanings hidden in the text? I’m sure you would not like it if I treated the Quran in this way.
You say,
So the man could achieve salvation without Jesus dying for his sins.
I say,
The man did not ask “what must happen for my sins to be forgiven?” he asked “what must I do to gain eternal life?” the answer to that is obvious “follow Jesus”.
To try and shoehorn a discussion of the atonement into this story is just silly. Or more likely wishful thinking.
Better yet in the very same story it is made clear that only a work of God can accomplish what this man desires.
And they were exceedingly astonished, and said to him, "Then who can be saved?" Jesus looked at them and said, "With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God."
(Mark 10:26-27)
So this story actually means exactly the opposite of the ‘secret true meaning” you are gleaning from it.
You say,
Sins can be forgiven through sincere repentance and a firm resolution never to repeat them.
I say,
You say that but provide no scripture to back up your speculation.
You say,
Psalms 51:19
The sacrifices [acceptable to] God are a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart, O God, You will not despise.
I say
Actually that verse says just the opposite of what you say it says
Quote:
then will you delight in right sacrifices, in burnt offerings and whole burnt offerings; then bulls will be offered on your altar.
(Psalms 51:19)
End quote:
I checked a couple more of the verses you posted and each of these are incorrect as well
Next time get your verses from the Bible instead of a Muslim web site
Peace
FMM,
"The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him" (Eze. 18:20)
Hey Lobo,
Just like Eric you are proof texting the Bible in a way that you would never allow me to do to the Quran.
Since I’m in a hurry I will just cut and paste a quick summery response and see if you still want to claim this verse supports your position.
Quote:
The chapter is a response to the Jewish (extra-Scriptural) proverb, "The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge." The proverb is a challenge to God's fairness. In essence, the proverb is the complaining proverb a people suffering for their sins, but seeking to place the blame elsewhere. God responds to this proverb by telling the people that they should not make excuses: if they will repent, they will be saved.
And here is the conclusion……….
We have seen that the passage is talking about repentance, and how inherited guilt is no bar to repentance. We may still repent and live - and that God has provided the opportunity for repentance. On the other hand, we have also learned that repentance requires a drastic change in a person. A change of heart. As we learn from other parts of Ezekiel (and other parts of the Bible), that's something God does:
Ezekiel 11:19 And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh:
Ezekiel 36:26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
Thus, we pray with the Psalmist:
Psalm 51:10 Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.
That is a prayer to be prayed by anyone who finds himself in sin - prayer for a repentant and contrite heart, so that we may turn from our sins and live.
End quote:
From here
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2008/04/misuse-of-ezekiel-18-especially-ezekiel.html
Please explore the context of this passage and read a thorough exegesis. I would hope you would expect as much from me if I cut and pasted a verse from the Quran
Peace
Bismi-llāhi r-raḥmāni r-raḥīm
"...on Mark 10
So this story actually means exactly the opposite of the ‘secret true meaning” you are gleaning from it ..."
You are the one are fantasying for secret true meaning, I never claim that. Those passages in Mark 10 crystal clear to me and anyone sincere enough before God that the man could achieve salvation without Jesus dying for his sins.
"...Next time get your verses from the Bible instead of a Muslim web site.."
No Sorry, I can pull out tons of objection from Islamic sources but no I would not do that if I talk to fundie Christians especially a Calvinist like you.
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt2651.htm
Psalms 51:19
--------------
יט
זִבְחֵי אֱלֹהִים, רוּחַ נִשְׁבָּרָה:
לֵב-נִשְׁבָּר וְנִדְכֶּה-- אֱלֹהִים, לֹא תִבְזֶה.
19
The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; {N}
a broken and a contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise.
You FMM,if checking verses, please consult to people who know Hebrew Bible better than Bible thumpers fundie sites.
Wassalam
Bismi-llāhi r-raḥmāni r-raḥīm
"..Since I’m in a hurry I will just cut and paste a quick summery response and see if you still want to claim this verse supports your position.."
FMM, it amazed me how you again exhausting a difficult way trying to explanation such a obvious message.
You try to inject your dogma here in such a confusing way.
Eze. 18:20 is clear that prophet Ezekiel is straight forward when speaking out against the idea of vicarious atonement.
Why God need a vicarious atonement? The New Testament depicts Jesus dying against his will:
Hebrews 5:7
In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud crying and tears, to Him Who was able to save him from death, and he was heard in that he feared..
Luke 22:42--44
Father, if You are willing, remove this cup from me, but not my will but Yours be done. And there appeared an angel to him from heaven, strengthening him. And being in agony he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat were as great drops of blood falling down to the ground.
Matthew 27:46
About the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice: "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani," that is: "My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?"
Here is the prophet Jesus (p), helpless, desperately praying to Almighty God to save him from imminent death.
So weak was he that he need an "angel " to strengthen him. And when he was on the cross knowing that his prayers were not answered, he felt God of deserting him.
Obviously he saw no reason to die.
Alhamdulillah God saved him (Q 4:157-158)
Wassalam
Hey Eric, How's it going?
I sense a little bit of hostility in your last couple of posts. I apologize if I've done anything to upset you.
You said,
19
The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; {N}
a broken and a contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise.
I say,
You are still quoting from verse 17 not verse 19.
Here is the entire context with both verses
(Psalms 51:17) The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.
(Psalms 51:18) Do good to Zion in your good pleasure; build up the walls of Jerusalem;
(Psalms 51:19) then will you delight in right sacrifices, in burnt offerings and whole burnt offerings; then bulls will be offered on your altar.
I’m not sure why you are mixed up with your references and I’m not sure why you are quoting out of context but it appears to me that you are not getting your material from the bible but some second hand source like a web site.
If you were actually looking at a bible you would have surely known that verse 19 followed verse 17.
Peace
You say,
Eze. 18:20 is clear that prophet Ezekiel is straight forward when speaking out against the idea of vicarious atonement.
I say,
Amazing
Did you even read the exegesis I linked too?
This passage does not mention the word atonement. It does not mention how God forgives. It does not say that repentance and good works are the grounds of salvation.
In other words it’s completly irrelevant to the subject of vicarious atonement
All it says is if you sin you will die and if you repent you will be forgiven. Every Christian believes this.
For some reason you choose to see some kind of secret message written between the lines of this passage. This appears to be a pattern with you
You say,
Those passages in Mark 10 crystal clear to me and anyone sincere enough before God that the man could achieve salvation without Jesus dying for his sins.
I say,
The passage plainly says that with man salvation is impossible. But for some reason you read it to mean that with man salvation is possible.
Amazing
You say,
Why God need a vicarious atonement?
I say,
Because sins must be punished in order for God to maintain his holyness.
You say
The New Testament depicts Jesus dying against his will:
I say,
In one sense you are correct Jesus would have preferred that his death was not necessary he would have preferred that to be any other way for God to forgive sins but alas there was not. this should tell you somthing
Quote:
(Matthew 26:39b) "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will."
(Matthew 26:42) Again, for the second time, he went away and prayed, "My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, your will be done."
End quote:
The Father himself could not think of a way for sins to be forgiven with out an atonement.
Imagine the anger he would feel at someone who claims to be smarter than he is.
Peace
Hey Eric,
Your discription of a week and alone Jesus is the whole point.
What you think is the disgraceful story of Jesus being defeated by death is actually the greatest victory the world has ever seen.
It is trully a pitty you can't see this.
quote:
Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
(Philippians 2:5-11)
Bismi-llāhi r-raḥmāni r-raḥīm
FMM,
I’m good Alhamdulillah and quite occupied with prayers and Quranic recitation in this holy month. No need to apologize. Im never upset. You have your view I have mine.
My position is always from this beautiful verse in the Quran 109:6 (Surat Al-Kāfirūn The Disbelievers ayah 6)
لَكُمْ دِينُكُمْ وَلِيَ دِينِ
"To you be your religion, and to me my religion
.”...On Psalms and Ezekiel 18:20 …”
Interesting
• You called a group of Torah scholars which expert in Hebrew, Aramaic a secondary sources?? http://www.magnes.org/scholars/academic-resources/mechon-mamre
• In this digital age, you still cannot accept an online version as the same as printed version?
No I am not quoting out of context nor mixed up with references:
• Sins can be inherited.
• Sins can be forgiven through sincere repentance and a firm resolution never to repeat them.
• Sincere confessionary repentant prayer is the primary biblical prescription for obtaining atonement
• It is clear that forgiveness of sin is not dependent on a sinless sacrifice but dependent on sincere repentance to God.
•The form of sacrifices is only of animal sacrifice and only were offered in the Temple.
Why do you think Muslims or others will accept an exegesis from a evangelical apologetic site?
Wassalam
Bismi-llāhi r-raḥmāni r-raḥīm
“…(Matthew 26:39b) "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will."
(Matthew 26:42) Again, for the second time, he went away and prayed, "My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, your will be done."
End quote:
The Father himself could not think of a way for sins to be forgiven with out an atonement…”
Well Mark account says differently (Mark 14:39) while Luke says nothing..
Seems like the scribes were trying to induce the impression that Jesus (p) was not dragged to the cross against his will
Wassalam
FMM,
There are a few nuggets to be gleaned from the NT after all:
During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission (Heb. 5:7).
you say,
Seems like the scribes were trying to induce the impression that Jesus (p) was not dragged to the cross against his will
I say,
I say,
I can’t believe the lengths to which you conspiracy theorists will go.
If evil scribes wanted to remove reference to Jesus prayer in Gethsemane you would think they would just leave it out but no these sneaky scribes just abbreviated the account a little but left all the so called objectionable material intact.
Then they somehow managed to destroy all the evidence of their incompetent attempt at changing the scripture from all the copies of the Gospels in all the churches all over the Roman empire all the while hiding from the authorities.
The mind boggles
peace
lobo says,
During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission (Heb. 5:7).
I say,
Jesus was saved from death it's called the Resurrection.
This is exactly what the passage I posted yesterday said.
Jesus obeyed God glorified him
Did you not read it?
quote:
he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
(Philippians 2:8b-11)
end quote:
By the way I guess eric's evil super scribes incompetently missed this passage as well.
Peace
eric said,
In this digital age, you still cannot accept an online version as the same as printed version?
I say,
I have no problem with online sources as long as you read them.
The problem is your source is calling verse 17 verse 19. This is because apparently you are using a version that has an obscure system for delaminating the text. One that is not used by most English readers.
What is more important is you for some reason have failed to read the very next verses. I take this is evidence that you have not actually read the text and are instead just posting the fruits of someone else’s labor.
Why don’t you post or link to the entire psalm in your version so we could look at it in context together.
You said,
• Sins can be forgiven through sincere repentance and a firm resolution never to repeat them.
You say,
Can you define repentance for me. I’m not sure you know what the word means.
You say
Sincere confessionary repentant prayer is the primary biblical prescription for obtaining atonement
I say
Do you understand what atonement means?
The Hebrew word is used over 100 times in the OT I know of no occasion in which repentance is the means by which atonement is made.
Please provide a verse that implies in anyway what you are saying. Hint… it would help if it contained the word "atonement"
You say,
The form of sacrifices is only of animal sacrifice and only were offered in the Temple.
I say,
This conversation began with an explanation of the difference between the OC types and shadows and the NC reality.
Have you already forgot.
You say,
Why do you think Muslims or others will accept an exegesis from a evangelical apologetic site?
I don’t expect you to accept anyone’s exegesis I expect you to do exegesis for yourself. So far all you’ve done is proof text
If you disagree with what was presented please explain why and support your opinion with exegesis.
If the text means what you claim it does you should be able to do this easily.
peace
Bismi-llāhi r-raḥmāni r-raḥīm
:..Your discription of a week and alone Jesus is the whole point.
What you think is the disgraceful story of Jesus being defeated by death is actually the greatest victory the world has ever seen.
It is trully a pitty you can't see this. …”
Not only I can’t see it but absurd this seems to be!
If Jesus (p)' sole purpose for coming into the world is said to have been to suffer and die for the sins of others. So when this moment finally arrived, he accuses God of abandoning him?!
Jesus (p) evidently feared death by crucifixion.
Jesus (p)cried on the cross:
About the ninth hour Jesus (p) cried out with a loud voice: "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" that is: "My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46)
Although the New Testament translates "sabachthani" as "forsaken me" (echoing Psalms 22:2), it means *slaughtering me*
Compare:
...then you shall slaughter [sabachta] of your herd and of your flock.... (Deuteronomy 12:21)
In other words, Jesus (p) screamed out, "My God, my God, why are You slaughtering me?"
Jesus (p) was shocked that God was actually letting him die!
Wassalam
Bismi-llāhi r-raḥmāni r-raḥīm
“..What is more important is you for some reason have failed to read the very next verses. I take this is evidence that you have not actually read the text and are instead just posting the fruits of someone else’s labor.
Why don’t you post or link to the entire psalm in your version so we could look at it in context together...”
I did posted the link didn’t I? you can read the whole English text along with the Hebrew text
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt2651.htm
That passage confirm that Sins can be "erased" through the power of repentance.
I also give a couple more of illustrations from the same source, have you forgotten that also?
I Samuel 15:22
And Samuel said: "Does the Lord delight as much in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obedience to the voice of the Lord? Behold, obedience is better than any sacrifice, and to comply [is better] than the fat of rams."
Jeremiah 36:3
Perhaps the House of Judah will hear all the evil I [God] intend to do to them, so that everyone may turn from his evil way and I may forgive their iniquity and sin.
Ezekiel 33:11
"As I live," says the Lord, God, "I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn, turn from your evil ways, for why should you die, O House of Israel?"
Wassalam
You say,
Not only I can’t see it but absurd this seems to be!
I say,
Of course you think it's absurd.
If it made sense to you I would be concerend I was not explaining it correctly?
Quote:
For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
(1 Corinthians 1:18)
End quote:
You say,
If Jesus (p)' sole purpose for coming into the world is said to have been to suffer and die for the sins of others. So when this moment finally arrived, he accuses God of abandoning him?!
I say,
Of course he does the abandonment was part of the punishment due our sin.
The worst suffering of Jesus was not physical but mental.
This saying of Jesus is actually part of one of the clearest prophecies of the crucifixion in the OT (psalm 22) .
It begins with the father’s abandonment (verse 1) and ends with he father’s praise of the afflicted one (verse 24)
Check it out sometime. It should blow your mind
Peace
You said,
I did posted the link didn’t I?
I say,
You have yet to comment on the verses that follow the one you posted. Why is that?
You say,
That passage confirm that Sins can be "erased" through the power of repentance.
I say,
what passage are you reading? It is definitely not Psalm 51.
Psalm 51 is a prayer for a clean heart (verse 10)
It makes the point that God delights in atoning bloody sacrifice (verse 19 twenty one in your version) but also graciously provides the repentant attitude that makes the sacrifice effectual.
peace
you said,
I also give a couple more of illustrations from the same source, have you forgotten that also?
I say,
No but when someone is proof texting God's word I find it to be better to deal with one passage at a time to make sure the true understanding for each is made clear
I’ll give a quick hint about where we will go when you deal with the context of the first text.
I Samuel 15:22 Is part of a story in which God commanded that everything in the territory of the Amalekites be killed but the Children of Israel disobeyed and instead tried to offer the plunder as sacrifice completly contary to the law as layed down by Moses.
Jeremiah 36:3 is about repentance
You must repent in order to be forgiven. But this says nothing about on what basis God grants forgiveness.
You must write a check to pay the mortgage but the act of writing does not magically put the funds in your account.
Ezekiel 33 is a parallel text to Ezekiel 18 and we’ve already discussed the fact that these passages simply say that if you repent you will be forgiven.
The don’t say that you can repent and they don’t say on what basis God will grant forgiveness,
I will love to look at each of these passages with you. Studying God’s word is my favorite thing but it’s better if we do it one passage in context at a time.
Peace
Bismi-llāhi r-raḥmāni r-raḥīm
"...Of course he does the abandonment was part of the punishment due our sin.
The worst suffering of Jesus was not physical but mental.
This saying of Jesus is actually part of one of the clearest prophecies of the crucifixion in the OT (psalm 22) .
It begins with the father’s abandonment (verse 1) and ends with he father’s praise of the afflicted one (verse 24)
Check it out sometime. It should blow your mind ..."
No. This isn't a prophecy about crucifiction. This is about David (p) speaks out his own pain, anguish, and longing as he remained a fugitive from his enemies.
David (p) never consider himself someone who can provide salvation. He calls himself a worm (Ps 22:7) whose only salvation can come from God Almighty.
Besides if you argue about the context, your understanding of psalms 22 propechies the crucifction is out of theme with the entire psalm and the rest of the Hebrew Bible.
Wassalam
Bismi-llāhi r-raḥmāni r-raḥīm
"..You say,
That passage confirm that Sins can be "erased" through the power of repentance.
I say,
what passage are you reading? It is definitely not Psalm 51..."
Yes, It is Psalms 51
I qooted again to make it easy for you:
18 For Thou delightest not in sacrifice, else would I give it; Thou hast no pleasure in burnt-offering.
19 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; {N}
a broken and a contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise.
It is you that prooftexting the Torah to make the impression that blood is the only means of wash away sin.
Wassalam
you say,
I qooted again to make it easy for you:
I say,
Wow
All this discussion and you still can't bring your self to post the whole passage
I’m genuinely curious
Is this because you are unable to see the verses that follow?
You say,
This is about David
I say,
again wow
Are you actually implying that you do not know that the universal expectation of first century (and modern) Jews is that the Messiah will be a new David?
It is not possible for a Psalm of David to not be about the Messiah in some way.
"My servant David shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall walk in my rules and be careful to obey my statutes.
(Ezekiel 37:24)
But they shall serve the LORD their God and David their king, whom I will raise up for them.
(Jeremiah 30:9)
Afterward the children of Israel shall return and seek the LORD their God, and David their king, and they shall come in fear to the LORD and to his goodness in the latter days.
(Hosea 3:5)
etc etc etc
you say,
He calls himself a worm
I say,
exactly !!!!!!
quote:
For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed.
(Isaiah 53:2-5)
end quote:
you say,
your understanding of psalms 22 propechies the crucifction is out of theme with the entire psalm and the rest of the Hebrew Bible.
I say,
It's possible that you don't understand what "context" means.
I think this is because unlike genuine revelation passages from the Quran must have context imposed on them from the outside.
I'd love to help you understand the concept as it relates to God's word. It's not hard.
I challenge you to read one of the books of the prophets in it’s entirety (your choice) and then we can discuss what it’s about. Instead of just cherry picking a verse here and there to try and support a position.
let me know if your game.
peace
Bismi-llāhi r-raḥmāni r-raḥīm
"...Wow
All this discussion and you still can't bring your self to post the whole passage .."
Psalm 51 tell us how God does not spurn a broken and contrite heart.
The last verses 20–21 is only possible after proper contrition and intervention by God, as seen in the entire psalm. They want to sacrifice animals again, although David knew that this was not what God really wanted. Sacrificing animals only made God happy if the people were sorry for their sins.
Interesting to know that some commentary think that verses 20 and 21 came as a later edition and the verses are probably not by David.
WOW!
Time and time again, the prophets remind us that the path to God is repentance. Some of the scriptural references are: Isaiah 55:7, Ezekiel 18:21-23, 33:10-20, and the book of Jonah.
None of these passages say a word about the “necessity” of blood-sacrifice in order for God to grant forgiveness.
Wassalam
Bismi-llāhi r-raḥmāni r-raḥīm
"..Are you actually implying that you do not know that the universal expectation of first century (and modern) Jews is that the Messiah will be a new David?
It is not possible for a Psalm of David to not be about the Messiah in some way.."
Psalms tell story of David (p) speaking of himself and the Jewish people
This is a historical psalm rather than a messianic one.
WOW!
You which failed to recognized this simple message. Do you actually ever read the verses?
It is your theology which led it to develop such understanding (the crucifiction scneario) different from previous revelation
You also try to make mulims believe that atonement refers to as human sacrifice.
By whose authorithy? The Bible clearly states that human sacrifice is an abomination in the sight of God (Lev. 18:21, 20:2-5, Deu. 12:31, Jer. 32:34-35),
Yes, the Mosaic law prescribes animal sacrifices for ritual worship (as we muslims to this day also still commemorate prophet Abraham (p) ram sacrifice (قربان).
According to the scriptures, prophet Abraham (p) was about to sacrifice his son when a voice from heaven stopped him and allowed him to sacrifice a ram instead as human sacrifice is an abomination in the sight of God. Alhamdulillah
Genensis 22:
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0122.htm#8
Al Qurān Al Karīm
http://quran.com/37/99-113
You keep saying that but this is viewed as supporting the idea of vicarious atonement. It is you who must have context imposed on them from the outside.
Again I cited again (Eze. 18:20) when Ezekiel (p) speaks out against the idea of vicarious atonement, where one person can suffer punishment for another person's sin:
"The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him"
Wassalam
Bismi-llāhi r-raḥmāni r-raḥīm
"...exactly !!!!!! ..."
Yes exactly.
Isaiah 41:14 - Fear not, thou worm Jacob, and ye men of Israel;
I will help thee, saith the LORD, and thy redeemer, the Holy One of
Israel.
David (p) consistently uses an animal motif to describe his adversaries -
repeated on many other occasions (e.g., Ps 17:11,12, 35:17, 59:2-7,15).
So, the Jewish people are likened to a worm, and the comparison here
indicates that David was writing about the plight of the Jew - he was not writing prophecised anything about Jesus (p) cruci"fiction"
Wassalam
Eric,
I'm real busy right now but I had to respond to this one with out delay,
You say,
Psalms tell story of David (p) speaking of himself and the Jewish people
and,
Isaiah 41:14 - Fear not, thou worm Jacob, and ye men of Israel;
I will help thee, saith the LORD, and thy redeemer, the Holy One of
Israel.
Exactly!!!!!!!
If you only knew what you had just said,
The link between Israel and her true King is so strong that the King and his people are at times indistinguishable.
Israel is a worm
David is a worm
Israel is God’s servant (Isaiah 44:1)
David is God’s servant ( Isaiah 37:35)
Israel is God’s son (Hosea 11:1)
David is God’s son (Psalm 2:7)
Israel is the apple of God’s eye (Deuteronomy 32:10)
David is the apple of God’s eye (Psalm 17:8)
Israel receives an everlasting kingdom (Daniel 7:18)
when the Messiah receives an everlasting kingdom (Daniel 7:14)
Etc etc etc.
The Messiah is the true Israel as well as the new David.
In the eyes of God The true King and his people are viewed as if they were the same entity.
this is federalism.......
That is what Christianity and the new covenant is all about.
amen and amen
I'll get to the rest of your comments later.
peace
Bismi-llāhi r-raḥmāni r-raḥīm
"...Exactly!!!!!!!
If you only knew what you had just said,..."
Israel is God’s son (Hosea 11:1)
David is God’s son (Psalm 2:7)
Yes. Thank you for pointing out that the term "son of God" in not in the familial Godship sense but merely enjoyed a special relationship to God.
Muslims are obliged to make an effort to maintain continuous relationship to God. To seek knowledge and love.
God in the Qur'an said "Whoever acts righteously, whether male or female, and is a believer, We will surely give him life with a good life, and We will surely give them their reward in accordance with the best of what they used to do..." (Q 16:97)
Federalism is just Calvinist theological framework. A difficult way trying to excape the problematic "sacrificial" death of Jesus (p) on the cross.
No this belief cannot be validated from within the Hebrew Bible. Therefore this has no place in true revelation of God.
Wassalam
eric said,
No this belief (Federalism) cannot be validated from within the Hebrew Bible. Therefore this has no place in true revelation of God.
I say,
How can you say that with a strait face?
It would be like me saying that the principle of the unity of God is not validated from within the Quran.
Only someone who had never looked at the book in question would believe such a thing
This is exactly why I asked you to agree to actually read the prophets instead of just relying on quote mining from Islamic sources.
I can give you dozens of examples from scripture of God metering out his justice according to the principle of federalism. You can’t read a single book with out seeing it.
Would you like me to bury you in texts?
Here is the literaly a random passage that I just happened to be reading this very morining.
quote:
Now there was a famine in the days of David for three years, year after year. And David sought the face of the LORD. And the LORD said, "There is bloodguilt on Saul and on his house, because he put the Gibeonites to death."
So the king called the Gibeonites and spoke to them. Now the Gibeonites were not of the people of Israel but of the remnant of the Amorites. Although the people of Israel had sworn to spare them, Saul had sought to strike them down in his zeal for the people of Israel and Judah.
And David said to the Gibeonites, "What shall I do for you? And how shall I make atonement, that you may bless the heritage of the LORD?" The Gibeonites said to him, "It is not a matter of silver or gold between us and Saul or his house; neither is it for us to put any man to death in Israel." And he said, "What do you say that I shall do for you?"
They said to the king, "The man who consumed us and planned to destroy us, so that we should have no place in all the territory of Israel, let seven of his sons be given to us, so that we may hang them before the LORD at Gibeah of Saul, the chosen of the LORD." And the king said, "I will give them."-------------
--------------They hanged them on the mountain before the LORD, and the seven of them perished together. They were put to death in the first days of harvest, at the beginning of barley harvest.
--------------And he brought up from there the bones of Saul and the bones of his son Jonathan; and they gathered the bones of those who were hanged. And they buried the bones of Saul and his son Jonathan in the land of Benjamin in Zela, in the tomb of Kish his father. And they did all that the king commanded.
And after that God responded to the plea for the land.
(2 Samuel 21:1-14)
end quote:
You find this sort of thing everywhere in the Bible.
If you would honnor the Prophets by actually reading them. This would not even be an issue.
peace
Bismi-llāhi r-raḥmāni r-raḥīm
"...Only someone who had never looked at the book in question would believe such a thing
This is exactly why I asked you to agree to actually read the prophets instead of just relying on quote mining from Islamic sources.."
I dont know about you but I read Bible (OT/Nt) including the prophets when I was in my teen, it has been more than 25 years now. I thought tried to be sincere when I did that.
I did not just rely on Islamic sources, and I dont believe those people who are scholars in the Hebrew Bible and do not evangelistic agenda have failed to recognize the worship of almighty God / Jehovah through the form of human sacrifice.
Why would the almighty God who forbid the human sacrifice and punish those when they did, then turn right around and demand that Israel worship Himself as the very thing (a human sacrifice) that he was so against (Deuteronomy 12:31, Leviticus 18:21, Leviticus 20:2-4, Jeremiah 32:34-35) ?
FMM why cant you accept simple fact that the scripture never indicate a human sacrifice of the coming end-of-days messiah.
The only way I come to understand the theology of Human sacrifice and blood communion it has to be read using the context using pagan mythology as a guide.
Osiris-Dionysus was a mythical god that died and rose on the third day after which a ritual celebration meal of bread and wine symbolized his body and blood.
Wassalam
Eric said,
I dont believe those people who are scholars in the Hebrew Bible and do not evangelistic agenda have failed to recognize the worship of almighty God / Jehovah through the form of human sacrifice.
I say,
When did I say anything about human sacrifice? We were talking about federalism, The concept that a federal head can be held responsible for the actions of his people.
This seems to be a pattern with you instead of interacting with what I’m actually saying you choose to interact with what you think I am implying.
This might be the reason you missed so much when you read the bible all those years ago. I suggest you try and read it again and this time let it interrupt itself.
You say,
The only way I come to understand the theology of Human sacrifice and blood communion it has to be read using the context using pagan mythology as a guide.
I say,
There is your problem you are importing the concept of pagan human sacrifice into your understanding of the Bible. Why not try ant let the Bible speak for itself.
Jesus crucifixion has more in common with Islamic “martyrdom” than pagan human sacrifice.
The Islamic martyr gives up his life in obedience to Allah.
Jesus gave up his life in obedience to the Father
The difference is that in Islam the martyr dies for selfish reasons to gain his own salvation.
Because Jesus is with out sin of his own and serves as the covenant head for his people he is able to give up his life for others.
It’s that simple
Peace
Bismi-llāhi r-raḥmāni r-raḥīm
"..When did I say anything about human sacrifice? We were talking about federalism, The concept that a federal head can be held responsible for the actions of his people.."
Read again through the whole thread, it is about The mosaic law, original sin, human sacrifice, salvation. You dragged to the point of Federalism irrelevance. What is it with you? Did the scripture make any mention of this?
You tend to divert argument by bringing forward a faith conviction dressed up with prooftexting vague passages.
Again Ezekiel (p) 18 summarize the fundamental scriptural principle: A righteous person cannot die vicariously for the sins of the wicked.
This idea that the innocent can suffer to atone for the sins of the wicked is pagan influenced.
In Ezekiel 18:20-23 the prophet declares that true repentance alone washes the penitent clean of all iniquities.
Every one of his sins are forgiveness in Heaven. This chapter is so clear and unambiguous, unlike your federalism sort of stuff. There can be no other reading of these passages.
Blood-sacrifices or the veneration of a crucified messiah not mentioned or even hinted throughout Ezekiel’s thorough and inspiring discourse on sin and atonement.
Throughout Old Testament warn agaisnt human sacrifices. When Moses (p) offered to have his name removed from the Torah in exchange for the sin that the Jewish people had committed with the Golden Calf, the Almighty abruptly refused Moses’ offer (Exodus 32:31-33)
Moses, who was righteous could not suffer vicariously for the sin of the nation. Rather, only the soul that sinned would endure judgment.
Wassalam
Bismi-llāhi r-raḥmāni r-raḥīm
"..Jesus crucifixion has more in common with Islamic “martyrdom” than pagan human sacrifice..."
FMM, What Islamic martydom to do with human sacrifice?
Who qualify Islamic martyrdom ( شَهيد ) ?
"Whoever is killed trying to keep his property, he is a witness-martyr; whoever is killed trying to defend his life, he is a witness-martyr"
Islam also teaches that God grants the reward of martyrdom (istishhad) to those who die in a other causes including death during childbirth, accidents such as fires and drownings, and epidemic diseases such as the plague, an earthquake.
But regardless of how death occurred, muslims believe that the reward of martyrdom is contingent upon proper belief, sincerity, perseverance and thankfulness to God.
Also that there are some sins that martyrdom does not expiate but only repentance (tawba), such as disbelief and hypocrisy, impiety to parents, and betrayal of trusts; and deficient states that martyrdom does not compensate but only repayment or pardon, such as debts.
(narrated by Ibn `Asakir Sahih Ibn Hibban, Sa`id ibn Zayd Abu Hurayra , Abd Allah ibn `Amr ibn al-`As in Muslim, al-Nasa'i, and al-Tirmidhi, Ibn `Abbas by Ibn Majah, and from Abu Hurayra and Anas by al-Khara'iti)
But there is no such a thing a concept of "giving up one life" to God in Islam.
O you who believe, do not consume each others' properties illicitly - only mutually acceptable transactions are permitted. You shall not kill yourselves. GOD is Merciful towards you. (Q 4:29)
Wasaslam
May Allah's peace be upon you my brother. The quote regarding the Apostasy in the old testament is not Deuteronomy Chapter 16. It is actually Chapter 13. It might been observed and/or brought up, but Allahu A'alam.
Thank you and May Allah Guides All to the Truth.
@Anonymous
Thanks for the correction brother. I have just changed it. Thanks
Post a Comment