Monday, 26 December 2011

How old was Mary when Betrothed/Married to Joseph? At what age was Mary pregnant with Jesus?

Prof. Geza Vermes
Earnest inquiry as to the age of Mary at the time of her betrothal (and marriage) to Joseph as well as the virginal conception (and birth) of Jesus (p) is clouded by the revisionist claims of Christian evangelists who are intent on representing a 21st century understanding of such customs. This is another reason why consulting scholarship in any enquiry is of paramount importance. Here we have the Jesus scholar, Professor Geza Vermes, breaking the barriers of evangelical revisionism with proper contextualisation of suchlike.

Christians and Jews: Arranged Marriages

Arranged marriages were the norm within Jewish societies prior to and contemporaneous to Jesus’ time. Thus, scholars like Geza Vermes are led to believe Mary’s betrothal to Joseph would have been arranged by a male relative at a young age.

To begin with betrothal, in Matthew (as in Luke) Joseph and Mary are said to be engaged. To appreciate properly the meaning of betrothal, it is to be remembered that in the Jewish society of the age of Jesus, arranged marriage was the established custom. The betrothal of a young girl was the prerogative of her father. If the father was no longer alive, his place was taken by the girl’s brother or some other male relative. The head of the family negotiated the financial settlement with the groom and his parents. The girl had no say whatever in the matter.

Betrothal of minors was a Jewish norm

Contrary to some of the apologetic material emanating from various Christian ministries, standard Jewish practice at the time was the betrothal of minors – females attained maturity at the age of twelve.
Quite apart from the subordinate status of women in Jewish Law, in the rabbinic era and no doubt earlier too, the bride-to-be was by definition a minor, a person not yet of age. It should be noted that in the Mishnaic-Talmudic legislation girls attained majority when they started to menstruate, or on the day after their twelfth birthday, whichever came first. In the rabbinic perspective, majority and attainment of puberty were coterminous. By the age of twelve years and six months a young woman became, in the terminology of the rabbis ‘mature’ (bogeret), and was expected already to be married. In any case, by then her father no longer had the right unilaterally to betroth her.

Vermes: Mary was no more than twelve (12) or a little younger

Again, cutting through some of the evangelical revisionism, according to Geza Vermes, Mary would have been twelve years of age (or a little less) at the time of her betrothal/marriage to Joseph and at the time of her giving birth to Jesus (p)

Once the preliminary requirements laid down in the agreement of betrothal were satisfied, nuptials followed: they were presumed to take place within twelve months from the date of agreement. Then the bridegroom led his bride to his own home amid solemn festivities attended by family, friends and neighbours. The Gospels contain various parables about Jewish weddings (see for example Mt 25:1-13). It would follow from these rules, which appear standard and long standing, and not some kind of innovation by the redactors of the Mishnah, that at the time of the incidents described in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Mary was no more than twelve years old or conceivably a little less, and by the standards of her society and age, mature enough for marriage

Jesus’ views + Christian fundamentalist hypocrisy and folly

Christian evangelists should note there is no recorded condemnation of such practices from Jesus thus suggesting Jesus gave (at the very least) tacit approval of such marital customs.

Some of the riff-raff amongst Christian evangelists readily de-contextualise the marriages of Muhammad (p) to Aisha (ra) in order to direct an intellectually dishonest character-assassination attempt of Prophet Muhammad (p) yet fail to recognise this marriage was in similar vein to the Jewish customs at the time of Jesus. These evangelists fail to attack the Jews for such practices whilst attacking Muslims and Mormons (Joseph Smith) for the same custom.

Further still, the riff-raff amongst Western Christian evangelists fail to attack their fellow ‘Bible-believing’ forefathers as they were following similar marital customs:

Age is an additional requirement. Every jurisdiction mandates that a man and a woman must be old enough to wed. In the 1800s, the legal age was as low as 12 years old for females. Modern statutes ordinarily provide that females may marry at age 16 and males at age 18. Sometimes a lower age is permitted with the written consent of the parents. A number of states allow for marriage below the minimum age if the female is pregnant and a judge grants permission [Marriage: Legal Dictionary - http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/marriage]

Quotes taken from Jesus, Geza Vermes, Penguin Books, 2010, p. 64-65

May Allah send more Blessings upong Mary, Jesus and Muhammad. Ameen.

Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com

40 comments:

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Hey all,

Could someone explain to me what speculation about Marry's age at her betrothal has to do with the price of tea in china?

1) No Christian thinks that the culture of first century Palestine is in anyway normative for us.

2) Jesus never once defended the culture he grew up in and often criticized it

3) the Bible makes it clear that we should put off marriage for as long as we can continue to keep our passions in check

4) We all agree that Marry did not have sex with Joseph at the time of her nuptials

It is the Muslim not the Christian who wishes to make the cultural mores of the ancient middle east to be acceptable practice today.

I trully don't understand why other than idle curiosity would anyone care about this sort of rank speculation.

Can someone explain it to me please?

peace

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Hey all,

Could someone explain to me what speculation about Marry's age at her betrothal has to do with the price of tea in china?

1) No Christian thinks that the culture of first century Palestine is in anyway normative for us.

2) Jesus never once defended the culture he grew up in and often criticized it

3) the Bible makes it clear that we should put off marriage for as long as we can continue to keep our passions in check

4) We all agree that Marry did not have sex with Joseph at the time of her nuptials

It is the Muslim not the Christian who wishes to make the cultural mores of the ancient middle east to be acceptable practice today.

I trully don't understand why other than idle curiosity would anyone care about this sort of rank speculation.

Can someone explain it to me please?

peace

Anonymous said...

According to The Handbook of Life in Bible Times, by J.A. Thompson, rabbis had set the minimum age for marriage at 12 for girls. Mary was likely a young adolescent.

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Anonymous said:

rabbis had set the minimum age for marriage at 12 for girls. Mary was likely a young adolescent.

I say,

So?? Why does it matter how old she was?? Her age at marriage should not make any difference in our practice today.

You agree right???

Idle speculation is just that idle speculation.

It makes no difference whether Mary liked peas or carrots more.

If things like this were important to know God would have revealed them to us.

On the other hand here is what God revealed to us concerening when to get married.

quote:

To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
(1 Corinthians 7:8-9)

end quote:

That will settle the matter for the Christian.

No nine year old is in danger of losing self control sexualy therefore no nine year old should marry.

Therefore Muhammad was wrong to marry a 9 year old. No matter when he lived or what his culture
thought was OK.


No speculation required we just need to obey God’s genuine revelation

nuff said



Peace

Fifth Monarchy Man said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Yahya Snow said...

Hello FMM,

I shall give you the courtesy of an answer.

In the pictures (both motion and still) depicting Mary we are confronted with a female who appears to be in her late teens or early twenties. Moreover, aside from the implied age, there are evangelists who do make do bracket Mary in such an age range (i.e. late teens to early twenties. For instance, Wayne Blank writes:

Mary would have been approximately in her late teens or early twenties when Jesus was born, so what happened in her family life, if anything, during the next 30 years until Jesus' crucifixion

[See here: http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/maryoth.htm]

Also, some of your co-religionists and co-apologists offer a double standard in wrongly criticising Joseph Smith and Prophet Muhammad when it comes to the age of marriage. The double standard is compounded further through Christian evangelical silence on Jewish marital customs (customs which Jesus did not denounce – according to the NT) and Christian practices of the same nature.

In fact, honest and scholarly Christians do admit the age of marriage was as low as 9 years in the Middle East in the past. Some of those whom you may be familiar with amongst the internet brigade of Christian critics also venture the equally hypocritical argument of women not being able to physically manage child-birth in their early teens –somebody needs to point them to the question which arises from their own theology and academic:

Why then was Mary pregnant at such a young age?

Why then did Jesus not abolish such a marital custom?

Why then did the ‘holy spirit inspired’ Christians of the past partake in such marriages?

The truth is, the arguments which are espoused by shoddy Christian apologists such as Shamoun, Wood and other ABN types are nothing but hypocritical nonsense. Sadly, I see little attempts some Christian missionaries continue to use such argumentation. To paraphrase Sheikh Yasir Qadhi, when explaining such issues to people you need them to have a little bit of sense.

So this blog post is designed to stomp out the double standard and the intellectual dishonesty.

I trust earnest folk amongst the Christian readers will help to educate their co-religionists in such matters.

EDIT: You, in your most recent comment accused Prophet Muhammad of wrong doing for marrying 'a nine year old'. If you study further in these matters you will realise this was the custom by others (Christians admit this!). And yes, people did marry as young as nine. Muslim scholarship agrees that Prophet Muhammad consummated the marriage when Aisha was of age (ie she had reached puberty) - though the ties were made 3 years earlier. Enough cyber ink has been expended on this subject, it's sad that some Christians continue with the same ignorant staement-making whilst the scholarly folk amongst Christians and Non-Christians look on asking, when will these people learn.

Note: The age of nine is disputed by some scholars (i.e.Moustafa Zayed) because they believe back in those days they didn't tally their ages accurately.

In further response to your latest comment, I would also ask you what 10, 11 and 12 year old is 'in danger of losing control sexually'? Yep, Jews were marrying girls off at such an age - so too were the 'holy spirit inspired' Christians of the past.

Also, Jesus gave tacit approval to such marriages (according to a deduction from a combination of your holy book and academics)


If you looked into this further you will note that the biological sign (menstruation) was what they went by. See Prof Geza Vermes concerning this paraphrasing - quoted elsewhere on this blog

I repeat the paraphrase of Sheikh Yasir Qahdi, you need the other person to have sense when discussing suchlike with them.

Thanks

May Allah send further peace and blessings upon all His prophets. Ameen

Ali said...

so its ben 2 years since david wood blocked me for failing to back up his honor killing lies, i went to go post on his blog yesterday (ironically another honor killing post) and he STILL hasn't approved of my comment, while approving 48 others.

and btw, that honor killing was a christian one. david still hasn't realised yet.

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

yahya says,

(customs which Jesus did not denounce – according to the NT) and Christian practices of the same nature.

I say,

So you believe that in order for a practice to be sinful Jesus needed to specifically denounce it in the exact words that you demand?

I’m sorry but that is not how it works Yahya. You are not in charge. God is and God has clearly said that marraige at that age is wrong

Jesus said it is best not to marry at all(Matthew 19-10:12). His apostles clarified his command so there would be no mistake as two his meaning.

A couple is permitted to marry if and only if they are unable to control their passions!!!!


Since a child does not have a problem with out of control sexual passions

It is wrong to marry a child.

It’s that simple



You said,

Why then was Mary pregnant at such a young age?


I say,

You have no idea how old she was.

Neither does anyone else all you have is idle speculation that is it nothing else,

even if she did marry very young why should it matter? The standard for us is not a what first century Jew would do it's what God commands

You say,

Why then did Jesus not abolish such a marital custom?

I say,

Clearly he through his apostles did forbid marriage to children.

That you deny this obvious fact is not a problem for God’s revelation it’s a problem for your comprehension and proof of your rebelious heart


You say,

Why then did the ‘holy spirit inspired’ Christians of the past partake in such marriages?

I say,

The Holy spirit never repeat never sanctioned pedophilia or marriage to Children.

It should not surprise you that Christians sometimes fall short of their calling.

Christians are not perfect just forgiven

you say,

You, accused Prophet Muhammad of wrong doing for marrying 'a nine year old'. If you study further in these matters you will realise this was the custom by others.


I say,

So what!!!

Just because something is a custom does not make it right.

That is the whole point. Idolatry was also the custom in ancient Arabia does that mean it’s not wrong?

Come on Yahya you are smarter than this.

You say,


Muslim scholarship agrees that Prophet Muhammad consummated the marriage when Aisha was of age

I say,

It does not matter when he consummated the marriage.

God’s word is clear you are not to get married at all until you can no longer control your passions.

Full stop

You say,

I would also ask you what 10, 11 and 12 year old is 'in danger of losing control sexually'?

I say,

None that is why you are not to marry a child. This is not rocket science.


Just because other people do things is not a reason to do them your self. Did not your mother teach you this?

Peace

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

yahya says,

(customs which Jesus did not denounce – according to the NT) and Christian practices of the same nature.

I say,

So you believe that in order for a practice to be sinful Jesus needed to specifically denounce it in the exact words that you demand?

I’m sorry but that is not how it works Yahya. You are not in charge. God is and God has clearly said that marraige at that age is wrong

Jesus said it is best not to marry at all(Matthew 19-10:12). His apostles clarified his command so there would be no mistake as two his meaning.

A couple is permitted to marry if and only if they are unable to control their passions!!!!


Since a child does not have a problem with out of control sexual passions

It is wrong to marry a child.

It’s that simple



You said,

Why then was Mary pregnant at such a young age?


I say,

You have no idea how old she was.

Neither does anyone else all you have is idle speculation that is it nothing else,

even if she did marry very young why should it matter? The standard for us is not a what first century Jew would do it's what God commands

You say,

Why then did Jesus not abolish such a marital custom?

I say,

Clearly he through his apostles did forbid marriage to children.

That you deny this obvious fact is not a problem for God’s revelation it’s a problem for your comprehension and proof of your rebelious heart


You say,

Why then did the ‘holy spirit inspired’ Christians of the past partake in such marriages?

I say,

The Holy spirit never repeat never sanctioned pedophilia or marriage to Children.

It should not surprise you that Christians sometimes fall short of their calling.

Christians are not perfect just forgiven

you say,

You, accused Prophet Muhammad of wrong doing for marrying 'a nine year old'. If you study further in these matters you will realise this was the custom by others.


I say,

So what!!!

Just because something is a custom does not make it right.

That is the whole point. Idolatry was also the custom in ancient Arabia does that mean it’s not wrong?

Come on Yahya you are smarter than this.

You say,


Muslim scholarship agrees that Prophet Muhammad consummated the marriage when Aisha was of age

I say,

It does not matter when he consummated the marriage.

God’s word is clear you are not to get married at all until you can no longer control your passions.

Full stop

You say,

I would also ask you what 10, 11 and 12 year old is 'in danger of losing control sexually'?

I say,

None that is why you are not to marry a child. This is not rocket science.


Just because other people do things is not a reason to do them your self. Did not your mother teach you this?

Peace

Bubble belt said...

Joseph, Mary's fiance, was probably 90 years old when he was enaged 10-year old Mary!
Im amazed why was not he considered a pedophile by these Islamophobes X-tian Evangelists .
What a bunch of hypocrites

You hardcore cross-worshipper, can you explain what the following Verses in the Bible:
What happen to a women before marriage?

"The girl's father and mother shall produce the evidence of the girl's virginity before the elders of the town at the gate. And the girl's father shall say to the elders, "I gave this man my daughter to wife, but he had taken an aversion to her; so he has made up charges, saying, 'I did not find your daughter a virgin.' But here is the evidence of my daughter's virginity!" And they shall spread out the cloth before the elders of the town. (JPS translation, Deuteronomy 22:15-17)"

Why would fathers do that, how, do check their daugher vaginas??

after that what?? kill her??


But if this thing be true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the damsel; then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die; because she hath wrought a wanton deed in Israel, to play the harlot in her father's house; so shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee. (JPS translation Deuteronomy 22:20-21)

Shocking - isn't it?

Why is this horrifying literature called The Good Book?

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Hey Yahya do you see how this idle speculation stuff works.

We have absolutely no idea how old Joseph and marry were at their marriage. And this is what you get

Bubble belt says,

Joseph, Mary's fiance, was probably 90 years old when he was enaged 10-year old Mary!

I say,

Notice how in the mind of this man mere scholarly speculation about the possibility of marry’s young age turns into a fact that marry was 10 and now the speculation is on the alleged old age of Joseph he is deemed to be "probably 90".

WOW see what happens when you let your imagination be your quide?

Contrast all this pure guess work to what we know about Muhammad.

He was middle aged when he married a child in violation of a clear command of the scripture.

No guess work no speculation just the cold hard facts.

bubble says,

Why is this horrifying literature called The Good Book?

I say,

Are you saying that it is horrifying for an adulter to be subjected to corporal punishment??? And that such a practice can not be from God??

Have you read your own Islamic sources?

Peace

minoria said...

I read a Richard Carrier article in infidels.org and he said that:

1.If a man was very poor he could betroth a girl but would have to wait for years to consummate it.

2.In Judaism there was the marriage first but for ONE YEAR the girl lived with her parents,no sex involved.

3.In Judaism the husband had to give a DOWRY,but if he was poor and had NO DOWRY he could still betroth her IF HE promised to pay the dowry in the future,in the meantime she lived with her parents.

Now,the Muslim argument is that it is UNDENIABLE Mary was 12.

That assumes the text is speaking about the first year of the betrothal-mariage,but it is a supposition.

We know from the text that Joseph was a TEKTON,a LANDLESS DAY LABORER,he was no farmer,he had no land and was only slightly better than a slave.

More than that we can't say.

3.

Bubble belt said...

FMM sayin.Are you saying that it is horrifying for an adulter to be subjected to corporal punishment??? And that such a practice can not be from God??

====


what are you tallking about, the Quran do not have cruel stuff like that..

In your book, a daughter can be killed just by a mere guess of her virginity before marriage.

So if you have a daughther who want to get married, you "test" her vagina first and if you think there is "proof" of her loss her hymen then you stone her to death...???

Pity poor christian daugthers..


Is this "corporal punishment"??

It is a barbaric act from a god of your imagination.

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

BB said,

In your book, a daughter can be killed just by a mere guess of her virginity before marriage.

I say,


It’s no mere guess it’s an infallible divine sign to determine the truth of the claim that a women is an adulteress. The fact that you think it is a mere guess just goes to show what a low view of God you have.

Do you not believe that God is capable of infallibly demonstrating the truth of something?

Do you believe that God somehow does not have the right to determine the punishment for violating his commands?

You say,

the Quran do not have cruel stuff like that..

I say,

Of course it doesn’t.

Allah is not able to infallibly demonstrate whether a woman is an adulteress and he does not take the holiness of his servants very seriously.

does he?

This is yet more evidence that the god of Islam can not be the one true God.



You say,

Is this "corporal punishment"??

I say

Yes by definition stoning would be corporal (physical) punishment.

How can you not know that?

You say,

Pity poor christian daugthers..


I say,

This is not a command given to Christians but to the theocratic kingdom of Israel.

This kingdom ceased to exist hundreds of years before the coming of the Messiah.

Your lack of effort to understand even the basic outline of the historic covenant circumstances of Revelation shows that you are not really interested in what the Bible teaches but instead are just looking to blaspheme the one true God.

I feel sorry for you to be so enslaved by sin that you can not even understand something so simple as this.

Peace

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Hey BB

By way of clarification

Since Muhammad is a false prophet and petty warlord his interest is not in the holiness of the covenant community but only in maintenance of discipline in the populace. That is why you have the cutting off of hands of thieves and flogging of adulterers in Islam.

A thief with out a hand is still a covenant breaker in the camp the sin has not been dealt with but the community gets to indulge in violence to let off steam and the disfigured lawbreaker continues to hang around as a deterrent against flouting discipline among the group.


God on the other hand is interested in purging the evil from the community at all costs in order to preserve the line that will produce the savior of the world.

He does not care about maintaining a cohesive fighting force.

He does not beat adulteress’s into submission like Islam does instead he removes them from the community.

The wages of sin are death not beating.

God does not wink at sin all sin must be atoned for.

Since God is God his interest is in holiness not in mere order and discipline. That is the reason for the sacrificial system.

Quote:

then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done an outrageous thing in Israel by whoring in her father's house……………. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.
(Deuteronomy 22:21)

End quote:

Now

Because of Jesus’ work on the cross sin can be atoned for and the evil can be removed from the people of God and at the same time the sinner can be shown Grace through Jesus.

check this out

Quote:

The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?" This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her." And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus stood up and said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more."]]
(John 8:3-11)

End quote:

That my friend is the gospel. When you face God in the judgement you will not be able to claim you never heard it.

Nuff said

Peace

Bubble belt said...

Fifth monarch man quote John 8 to defend his cruel book.

Hah??, you need a little education here. John 8:3-11 is forged texts.


Besides, Jesus never challenge the to stone her.

Your book teach to kill your daughter just by checking her vagina....no legal proceedings, no witness required...yet you still defending it as if this is Gods word??

thats freakin me out man..

erikfadli said...

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

FMM: "The wages of sin are death not beating"

In contrast to your reasoning from New Testament about capital punishment and your prejudice toward Islam and the holy prohet, the genuine God's Word in the Qur'an outline basic principle capital punishment so that :

...Take not life, which God has made sacred, except by way of justice and law. Thus does He command you, so that you may learn wisdom (Q 6:151)

In Islam, everyone has the right to life, this principle allows for an exception when a court of law demands it.

But even though the capital punishment is allowed, forgiveness is preferable. Forgiveness, together with peace, is a predominant Qur'anic theme .

In Islam the victim or the victim's family are the judges for all crimes; they decide what the punishment shall be under the supervision of a jurist who knows the Qur'an but family of a murder victim can pardon the murderer as God said in Q 5:32 that that compassion is the best choice.

Compare this with unmerciful vengeful god in Genesis 9:5–6, Romans 13:3–4, and Leviticus 20:1–27

Wasasalam

erikfadli said...

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم


FMM:
"..God does not wink at sin all sin must be atoned for.
Since God is God his interest is in holiness not in mere order and discipline. That is the reason for the sacrificial system. ."

Cmon FMM, how many times you bring with mand-made atonement justice again.

So God needs someone to pay off your sin debt to him???
and, because of his justice, he must take the payment from someone???

Why can not you agree with Prophet Jesus (p)' words regarding how God is able to just cancel your debt of sin and forgive the sinner?

When prophet Jesus (p) was asked how is a human being to attain eternal life, that is, how are we to be saved?

Interestingly, he answered in the gospel according to Mark chapter 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.”

Here prophet Jesus (p) does not tell the man that he must put his faith in him, or that salvation is solely dependent on him dying to atone for his sins.

No!.

Prophet Jesus (p) recognizes that the attribute of goodness is found perfectly in God alone!

Not in himself.

So sincerety obeying the law is the main road to salvation.

But in this individual’s case he lacked just one thing –
He needed to give away his wealth to the poor and this would result in his gaining treasure in heaven.

*** Note carefully the sequence***

The story continues..

Here is Matthew’s altered version in 19:17 (compare this with Marks original, an evidence of scriptural tampering made to Jesus’ words by removing his denial that he is good)

And Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.’ (Instead of Mark’s original ‘why do you call me good?’)

I hope now you can see the light, as we have seen, prohet Jesus (p)’ answer to the question about salvation that is:

1) focuses on obedience to the Torah and

2)giving to the poor (giving alms/zakah for good deeds)

As a Prophet , Jesus(p) taught that faithfulness to God is to be expressed in adherence to the Creator’s commands and precepts in the law.

Wassalam

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Hey Eric,

your comment that I had a lot of time to spend on the internet really made me think. God sometimes uses rebels to teach his children important things.

I am spending to much time here in conversations that are going nowhere.

There comes a point when you really have to shake the dust off your feet and move on.

I tried to engage folks like Sam and BB in a real conversation but they seem to be either uninterested on unable to do so.

So instead I’ll again give it a try with you. Because of your observation I won’t spend as much time as I have in the past if you avoid the issue or try and change the subject I’ll just wish you a good day. for now

You said,


Here prophet Jesus (p) does not tell the man that he must put his faith in him, or that salvation is solely dependent on him dying to atone for his sins.

No!.


I say,

I can’t believe you miss the whole point of the story.

If the rich man keeps the commandments will he inherit eternal life ?

No!!!!!!!

If the rich man remembers the poor will he inherit eternal life?

No!!!!!!!!

The rich man must rid himself of what he has put his trust in (his riches) and transfer his trust to Jesus (follow him)

Jesus plainly tells the rich man that the only way he will gain eternal life is to follow Jesus at the expence of all he has.

That is the Gospel in a nutshell.

“Forsake everything else and follow Jesus and you will be perfect”

The disciples understanding the implications of that demand rightly conclude that salvation is impossible.

quote:

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)

End quote:

All that stuff in the rest of the scriptures about atonement is simply the way that God makes the impossible possible.

Here is the entire context of that amazing proclamation I pray you have ears to hear

quote:


Those who heard it said, "Then who can be saved?" But he said, "What is impossible with men is possible with God." And Peter said, "See, we have left our homes and followed you." And he said to them, "Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not receive many times more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life."

And taking the twelve, he said to them, "See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written about the Son of Man by the prophets will be accomplished. For he will be delivered over to the Gentiles and will be mocked and shamefully treated and spit upon. And after flogging him, they will kill him, and on the third day he will rise." But they understood none of these things. This saying was hidden from them, and they did not grasp what was said.
(Luke 18:26-34)

end quote:

Please Father if it be your will remove the veil from Eric’s eyes like you did with the disciples after the resurrection and like you did with me.

and let him see the plain meaning of your words.

Show him the Grace you showed me. It is his only Hope

Amen


Peace

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Eric,

If you don’t mind I want to get personal with you for a minute. From our conversations here it seems to me like you have a lot in common with the rich man in the story.

You have shown a lot of pride in the way that you pray and what you eat and in the things you do for Allah like memorizing and learning Arabic.

You have shown a lot of pride in your intelligence and station in life. I remember you telling me that you are a rocket scientist.

Like Jesus with the rich man I’m here to humbly tell you

"You lack one thing”
(Mark 10:21)

You must abandon all and follow Jesus.

I realize that this seems to you to be an impossible task while you are imprisoned by your pride in your stubborn attempts earn God’s favor on your own.

Giving up self reliance can seem worse than hell itself.

The (Good news) Gospel is…….

Jesus looked at them and said, "With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God."
(Mark 10:27)


Praise be to God for his indescribable gift.
He makes the impossible possible.

Now repent and belive the gospel

Peace

erikfadli said...

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

FMM: "..I can’t believe you miss the whole point of the story.."

I dont think any unbiased person reading the following for the first time without theological mindset would ever come to the conclusion that Jesus claimed to be sacrifice to salvation, just the opposite!

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.’”

So when you state " ..Jesus plainly tells the rich man that the only way he will gain eternal life is to follow Jesus at the expence of all he has." you contradict the plain meaning of Mark 10 and make a fanciful opinion.

"For all things are possible with God" means that salvation NEED NO MEDIATION.

Did you notice that prophet Jesus (p) does not tell the man that he must put his faith in him, or that salvation is solely dependent on him dying to atone for his sins?

No!!!!!!!

As a humble prophet Jesus (p) recognizes that the attribute of goodness is found perfectly in God alone, not in himself; that to sincerely obey the commands of the Law is the main road to salvation,

but in this individual’s case the rich man lacked just one thing –

he needed to give away his wealth to the poor

and this would result in his gaining treasure in heaven.

Amen.

Wassalam

erikfadli said...

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

FMM: "You have shown a lot of pride in your intelligence and station in life...etc....etc.."

Let God be my judge not any mortal like you ...

Unlike you who I have seen in this forum to have shown a lot of hatred and prejudice toward last messenger of God, I love prophet Jesus and Muhammad and all the prophets God sent before them (peace be upon them all).

I might not worthy enough of representing a humbleness before the Lord, but I put my head to the ground when I pray dearly to God the creator, I dont know if one can do more humble than this.

I do not intend to destroy your faith of FMM. No. I simply invite you to see the light of the awesome Tauheed (true monotheism) and the beauty of God bountiful mercy as the last testament put it

‘And no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another. And if a heavily laden soul calls [another] to [carry some of] its load, nothing of it will be carried, even if he should be a close relative. You can only warn those who fear their Lord unseen and have established prayer. And whoever purifies himself only purifies himself for [the benefit of] his soul. And to God is the [final] destination’ (Q 35:18)

Every human being is responsible for his or her actions and is born pure and free from sin and they repent sincerely and God in His infinite wisdom will forgive them.

I hope the true Almighty God will show you hidaayah (guidance) someday

Wassalam

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Thank you for at least responding I will not get bogged down in side issues this passage is about how to inherit eternal life and I will try and stay focused on that one thing.

You say,

Did you notice that prophet Jesus (p) does not tell the man that he must put his faith in him, or that salvation is solely dependent on him dying to atone for his sins?

I say,

Actually that is exactly what he said. How do you not see.
I guess I will have to slow down and do this one baby step at a time.

You quoted Jesus and said,

“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.

I say,

A couple of questions for you,

Do you agree that no man is Good? Not the rich man not me not you??

Do you know that in order to make it to heaven you must not only be good you must be perfect like God?

Quote:
You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
(Matthew 5:48)

End quote,

You say,

that to sincerely obey the commands of the Law is the main road to salvation,

I say,

Wait a minute.. The rich man says he has kept the commandments from childhood. Jesus is not satisfied with that

Why did not Jesus also demand he give away all he had and follow him?

Keep in mind we are not just talking about wealth Jesus also included “house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands” as things that must be left in order to inherit eternal life (Mark 10:29-30).

I have much more to discuss but I will wait to see if you understand this little bit first.

Peace

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

You say,

Unlike you who I have seen in this forum to have shown a lot of hatred and prejudice toward last messenger of God,

I say,

I have no hatred at all for Muhammad. I'm sorry If I made you think I did.

I consider Muhammad to be a great leader and good moral teacher he is just just not a Prophet.

You say,


I love prophet Jesus and Muhammad and all the prophets God sent before them (peace be upon them all).

I say,

I’m sorry but it is not love to denigrate Jesus by considering him to be merely a prophet and it is not love to say that another prophet had to come after Jesus.

If you believe that I hate Muhammad just because I don’t agree he was a prophet Why do you not see how hateful your low opinion of Jesus seems to me?

If a pantheist told you he loves Allah just like he loves all the other gods would you consider this to be respectful or disrespectful? The answer is odvious.

Please don't feel like you must respond to this post. I'm much more interested in what you have to say in response to my other post

Peace

erikfadli said...

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

FMM: "A couple of questions for you,
Do you agree that no man is Good? Not the rich man not me not you?? .."

Not even Jesus (p).

We can only repent . There was already a system in place that allowed people to repent and be saved.

Thats why In the Gospel of Mark (which is the earliset gospel) we often read about Jesus telling the people to repent.

In Mark 10, the story of rich man, suppose, he had a change of heart and gave all my wealth to the poor after all. And if the next day the man died.

He must go to heaven as Jesus said if he did that he would have treasure in heaven.

Jesus point is clear and valid.

Why you find it so hard to understand. There was no necessity for the Messiah to die for the sins of anyone at all as a perfectly good system of repentance (leading to forgiveness) already existed.

After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!” (Mark 1:14-15)

Jesus had laid out about the conditions for forgiveness of sins during his ministry that is repentance.

The sacrifice of the cross was a mockery of numerous statements in the Torah about God’s acceptance of men’s repentance and the promise of His forgiveness.

Wassalam

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Eric said,

We can only repent .

I say,

I completely agree the problem is as the story of the rich man clearly illustrates it is impossible for man to repent. It is impossible to change your nature from selfish to selfless

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:

The rich man kept all the commandments from child hood but even he found it impossible to repent and follow Jesus.

If he could not do it how can you and I who have often fail to live up to the letter of the law?

You said,

suppose, he had a change of heart and gave all my wealth to the poor after all. And if the next day the man died.

He must go to heaven as Jesus said if he did that he would have treasure in heaven.


I say,

Only if he followed Jesus. the giving up of the wealth is only the first part of the requirement that Jesus made.

In order to enter eternal life he must give up all of what he valued and follow Jesus.

Those witnessing the event fully understood this meaning why are you missing it? Look at what Peter said in response to Jesus’ demand

Quote:

Peter began to say to him, "See, we have left everything and followed you." Jesus said, "Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel,
(Mark 10:28-29)

End Quote:


Thats why In the Gospel of Mark (which is the earliset gospel) we often read about Jesus telling the people to repent.

I say,

Repentance and following Jesus are necessary but impossible. That is the whole point of the story


You say

The sacrifice of the cross was a mockery of numerous statements in the Torah about God’s acceptance of men’s repentance and the promise of His forgiveness.

I say,

On the contrary the sacrifice is means by which God makes the impossible act of repentance possible.

Quote;


Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
(1 Peter 1:3)

End quote:

To claim forgiveness with out sacrifice is a mockery of the Torah

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

You say,

There was no necessity for the Messiah to die for the sins of anyone at all as a perfectly good system of repentance (leading to forgiveness) already existed.

I say,

You need to understand that God is not temporally bound. The benefits of Christ’s work were applied retroactively to those saved before the Cross.

That is why Christ is said to be crucified from the foundation of the world

quote:

And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him (the Antichrist), whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
(Revelation 13:8)

end quote:

Before the crucifixion forgiveness was granted by participating in an elaborate system of sacrifice that pointed to the true sacrifice that was to be given in the fullness of time

quote:

For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, "This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you." And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship. Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.
(Hebrews 9:19-28)

end quote:


peace

Fifth Monarchy Man said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fifth Monarchy Man said...

you said,

The sacrifice of the cross was a mockery of numerous statements in the Torah about God’s acceptance of men’s repentance and the promise of His forgiveness.

I say,

On the contary it is you who are doing the mocking of God's sacrifice.

This accourding to the word of God is foolish

quote:

Fools mock at the guilt offering, but the upright enjoy acceptance.
(Proverbs 14:9)

end quote:

peace

erikfadli said...

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

FMM:
"...You need to understand that God is not temporally bound. The benefits of Christ’s work were applied retroactively to those saved before the Cross..."

Im sorry, thats a profoundly wrong answer.

It contradicts Jesus’ teaching about the conditions for forgiveness of sins during his ministry (repentance)

Im asking you now: what is this "good news"? when prophet Jesus (p) said:

“The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!” (Mark 1:14-15)”

The good news is :

No matter how serious the sin, God is always seeking us out and is willing to forgive and forget our sins and give us a fresh start. As long as we live, it is never too late to ask for forgiveness and make a new start!

Listen to what Jesus (p) said :

"If you had one hundred sheep, and one of them strayed away and was lost in the wilderness, wouldn't you leave the ninety-nine others to go and search for the lost one until you found it? And then you would joyfully carry it home on your shoulders. When you arrived, you would call together your friends and neighbors to rejoice with you because your lost sheep was found. In the same way, heaven will be happier over one lost sinner who returns to God than over ninety-nine others who are righteous and haven't strayed away!
(Luke 15:3-7)

When you have sinned, you can ask God for forgiveness, as in the Lord's Prayer:

"..and forgive us our sins, just as we have forgiven those who have sinned against us.." (Matthew 6:12)

Refer also:
- Mark 2:15-17,
- Mark 2:5-10,
-Psalms 25:7,
-Psalms 32:1-2,
-Isaiah 43:25,
-Matthew 1:21,
-Matthew 18:12-14,
-Matthew 26:28,
-Luke 15:11-32,
-Acts 10:43,
-Acts 13:38,
-Romans 4:7-8,
-Hebrews 10:17.

Thats the beauty of God's Mercy and the promise of His forgiveness.

Back to Mark 10 , I invite you to consider the following

1) As contrary to your belief, Jesus (p) denies that goodness comes from himself: only God is good.
Jesus (p) is making clear that he is not God.

2) According to Jesus we are saved by obeying the commandments of God

This highlight Paul’s gospel deviation to Jesus genuine teachings.

3) But in this particular encounter the man lacked one thing (only) that blocked him from eternal life: his riches.

Jesus advises him to ’go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, for him to have treasure in heaven’

So the man will receive his heavenly reward as a result of selling his possessions.

Note carefully the sequence.

This is what Jesus (p) reportedly said of himself and the important question of eternal life in the earliest writings (gospel of Mark) we call it "NT" which still resonates genuine teaching of him.

Wassalam

erikfadli said...

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

FMM:
"Before the crucifixion forgiveness was granted by participating in an elaborate system of sacrifice that pointed to the true sacrifice that was to be given in the fullness of time
quote: Hebrews 9:19-28.."

You are thoroughly misled.

The jews use the sacrificial system but this is not the only way to make atonement for sin.

In judaism, sin may also be atoned for through repentance, restitution, and acts of charity.

But repentance, turning from sin, has always been the most important issue in God's eyes.

Prophet Jesus (p) clearly indicated this on numerous occasions.

Listen to the story of Zacchaeus the Tax Collector in Luke 19:

‘Jesus entered Jericho and was passing through. A man was there by the name of Zacchaeus; he was a chief tax collector and was wealthy. He wanted to see who Jesus was, but being a short man he could not, because of the crowd. So he ran ahead and climbed a sycamore-fig tree to see him, since Jesus was coming that way.

When Jesus reached the spot, he looked up and said to him, “Zacchaeus, come down immediately. I must stay at your house today.” So he came down at once and welcomed him gladly.

All the people saw this and began to mutter, “He has gone to be the guest of a ‘sinner.’”

But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, “Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.”

Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost.”

That very day salvation came to Zacchaeus’ house.

Jesus didn’t tell the man that the only way salvation could come to his house was when Jesus died for his sins;

Jesus did not mention ‘justification by faith alone’;

made no mention of God pouring his wrath upon Jesus in the place of sinners to gain Zacchaeus’ salvation.

No!!!!

Zacchaeus simply repents to God (not Jesus!),

the restitution is DONE.

Reconciliation is achieved to both God and man. Full stop.

"For I desire mercy and not sacrifice." (Hosea 6:6)

How wonderful, Alhamdulillah, Praise be to God!

Wassalam

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Eric said,

No matter how serious the sin, God is always seeking us out and is willing to forgive and forget our sins and give us a fresh start.

I said,


Agreed Christians give a hearty amen to those passages I never said otherwise

The problem is as clearly illustrated by the story it is impossible for natural man to repent and accept God’s forgiveness. As explained in the story (verses 33&34) In order for God to make this impossible act possible he had to go all the way and purchase our repentance with his life.

You say,

1) As contrary to your belief, Jesus (p) denies that goodness comes from himself: only God is good.

I say,

Contrary to the word of God You are presupposing that Jesus is not God. Since Jesus is God goodness comes from him

You say,

According to Jesus we are saved by obeying the commandments of God

I say,

I’m sorry but the story says the exact opposite of that. The Rich man had kept the commandments since childhood but went away sad and as fas as we know went to hell

You say,

Jesus advises him to ’go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, for him to have treasure in heaven’

I say,

The point of the command is not remember the poor but the store up treasure in heaven instead of on earth

By way of explanation check this out

Quote;

"Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
(Matthew 6:19-21)

And

"No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.
(Matthew 6:24)



End quote;

The point is you serve what you love. The rich man could not serve Jesus until he rid himself of all he had relied on. That is why Peter quickly pointes out the Jesus’ companions had left everything to follow him.

I really can’t see how you can miss this it is the whole point of the story. To be saved you must abandon all to follow Jesus because of our nature this is impossible for us. The message is plain as day.

You say,

So the man will receive his heavenly reward as a result of selling his possessions.

I say

The common Greek word here is καί it is used in the new testament 540 times it means “and” never “because“ or “as a result of” .

The rich man would get rewards in heaven as a result of leaving what he relies on and following Christ. This fact is clearly explained just eight short verses later in the very same story

Quote:

Jesus said, "Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life.
(Mark 10:29-30)

End quote:

How can you possibly miss this obvious unequivocal statement? It’s like you have a giant blind spot.

peace

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Eric said,

you said,

In judaism, sin may also be atoned for through repentance, restitution, and acts of charity.

I say,

I'm sorry but although we should always do those things and not doing them would be even more sin.

Just a little logical thinking will tell you that good works performed now can not compensate for past sins.

Scripture is very clear that sacrifice is necessary for the forgiveness of sins.

Here is a little bit to wet your appetite

quote:

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)

and

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)

end quote:


You say,

Jesus didn’t tell the man that the only way salvation could come to his house was when Jesus died for his sins;


I say

You again are limiting God by making him to be temporally bound. He was granted forgiveness in time “today” because of the lamb sacrificed from the foundation of the world.

And Jesus is not under obligation to teach a graduate course in theology every time he preaches the gospel.


Back up just ten verses or look forward to the very next chapter and you will see the grounds that forgiveness was granted to Zacchaeus and every other sinner that ever was reconciled to God .

You can not just take scissors to God’s revelation and remove a passage from it’s context. To try and make it say what you want. I know you would not like it if I treated the Quran in this way



You say,

"For I desire mercy and not sacrifice." (Hosea 6:6)


I say,

Of course I agree God does not desire sacrifice. He would much prefer it if we never sinned. He is not some sort of sadomasochist deity with a blood lust

But since we are selfish rebels who have callously tossed aside his holiness sacrifice is the only way that he can make the impossible task of repentance and the gift of forgivness possible.



Peace

erikfadli said...

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

FMM: "..How can you possibly miss this obvious unequivocal statement? It’s like you have a giant blind spot.."

Im astonished, how FMM can't see an elephant righr before his very eyes.

"why do you call me good?" Jesus (p) asked . “No one is good—except God alone." He answered

Jesus (p)'s answer is unequivocal.

You instead, exhibit your theological mumbo jumbo which sounds jibberish to me.

Luke 19 tells us that very day salvation came to Zacchaeus’ house. Jesus didn’t tell the man that the only way salvation could come to his house was when Jesus died for his sins; Jesus did not mention ‘justification by faith alone’; made no mention of God pouring his wrath upon Jesus in the place of sinners to gain Zacchaeus’ salvation. No. Zacchaeus simply repents to God (not Jesus!), does restitution, and is reconciled to both God and man.

This teaching demonstrates beyond doubt that salvation was available without Jesus’ alleged vicarious atonement.

Not only did it is available without a human sacrifice, the ‘mechanism’ of salvation is explained by Jesus in clear and unambiguous words as REPENTANCE TO GOD (..not to himself!..) and in certain cases restitution to the poor.

It appears to me that you are being rebellious to accept the evidence from authentic teaching of Jesus in this earlier synoptic gospels on sin, salvation and God.

It's like your holy spirit cannot process what this simple message of savation.

I remind you again about a passage in the book of Hosea.

Hosea was jewish prophet during a war going on among tribes of the kingdom of Judah. Because of the strife prevent some tribes to get to the Temple in Jerusalem to offer sacrifices. Did this leave them with no way of atoning for their sins? The prophet advises:

"Return, O Israel, to the LORD your God. Your sins have been your downfall!, Take words with you and return to the LORD. Say to him: "Forgive all our sins and receive us graciously, that we may offer the fruit of our lips (NIV Hosea 14:1-2).

How can't you see this and instead cherry-pick what you want out of your salvation idea .

We are able to approach God directly with prayer, which is possible at all times;

Not only that God assures us that sincere prayer can achieve forgiveness for our sins.

ثُمَّ إِنَّ رَبَّكَ لِلَّذِينَ عَمِلُوا السُّوءَ بِجَهَالَةٍ ثُمَّ تَابُوا مِن بَعْدِ ذَٰلِكَ وَأَصْلَحُوا إِنَّ رَبَّكَ مِن بَعْدِهَا لَغَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ

Then, indeed your Lord, to those who have done wrong out of ignorance and then repent after that and correct themselves - indeed, your Lord, thereafter, is Forgiving and Merciful. (Q 16:119)

Wassalam

erikfadli said...

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

FMM:
"..Scripture is very clear that sacrifice is necessary for the forgiveness of sins. 

quote:
 
(Leviticus 6:7)

(Leviticus 17:11)
.."

Again your theological dogma set you imprisoned to understand thise verse. scissor here and there to suit your need.

Let’s look at Leviticus in context:


ask any jews and read a littlr further this passage reveals not how to secure atonement from sins, but the prohibition against consuming blood.
This verse merely says that blood can serve as an atonement but by no means the only form of atonement.

As for Jewish understanding in the Torah, blood sacrifices were not the only path to atonement; there were other ways to achieve forgiveness.  Numbers 16:46-47, Exodus 30:15-16 and Numbers 31:50, the same expression as in Leviticus .

Hower blood sacrifices were the least effective of all the means of atonement mentioned in the Scripture that were only brought for unintentional sins.

Sacrifices did not help to atone for sins that were done intentionally (Leviticus 4, and Numbers 15:22-31).

Throughout the four Gospels, Jesus never speaks about his death serving as a sacrifice to atone for the sins of the world. 

The idea that an innocent person can be killed instead of those who are guilty is alien with what genuine scriptural teaching. Throughout the Bible, God says that one person cannot die for the sins of another:

“Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin” (Deuteronomy 24:16, II Kings 14:6).

“But everyone will die for his own sin; each man who eats sour grapes, his teeth will be set on edge” (Jeremiah 31:30).

“The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself” (Ezekiel 18:20).

“No man can by any means redeem his brother, or give to God a ransom for him” (Psalms 49:7).

“So you shall not pollute the land in which you are; for blood pollutes the land and no expiation can be made for the land for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who has shed it!” (Numbers 35:33).Jewish people. Moses intercedes, and offers to die in their place. In response, God says “Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book!” (Exodus 32:32-33). Throughout the Bible, God says that one person cannot die for the sins of another:

“Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin” (Deuteronomy 24:16, II Kings 14:6).

“But everyone will die for his own sin; each man who eats sour grapes, his teeth will be set on edge” (Jeremiah 31:30).

“The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself” (Ezekiel 18:20).

“No man can by any means redeem his brother, or give to God a ransom for him” (Psalms 49:7).

“So you shall not pollute the land in which you are; for blood pollutes the land and no expiation can be made for the land for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who has shed it!” (Numbers 35:33).

Wassalam

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Hey Eric,

Since you have decided to try and change the subject from what the story of the rich young ruler says about salvation I will bid you good day.

I think I have proven that my failure to engage you in this latest rabbit trail is only due my desire to limit the time I spend here.

I’m not sure when I’ve witnessed such an exhibition of acontextual cut and paste in the interest of a unbiblical presupposition.

I will not waste my time and yours explaining once again how to a read book in context that you don't even recognize it as scripture.

Because when I showed once again that your understanding of the Bible was incorrect you would just fall back and claim that it has been corrupted or better yet just change the subject yet again.

I know that you would not like it if I treated the Quran with such disrespect.

Until you are willing to treat the writings of the prophets of God with a respect similar to what you expect from non Muslims reading your own book.

I’m not sure how we can move forward

Perhaps I’ll feel like giving it another go sometime soon

Peace

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

one last thing

eric said,

"why do you call me good?" Jesus (p) asked . “No one is good—except God alone." He answered

Jesus (p)'s answer is unequivocal.


I roll my eyes and respond
............

let's see


Jefferson Davis the rebel leader said to Abraham Lincoln “Commander in chief what must I do to lead the country”

“why do you call me commander in chief?” Lincoln asked “No one is commander in chief but the president alone“.

Like Jesus Lincoln’s answer was unequivocal..... but the rebel Davis and Eric did not see it.

For some reason they mistook a Socratic effort at enlightenment as a denial of presidential authority.

pitty

Peace

erikfadli said...

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم


FMM: "..I’m not sure when I’ve witnessed such an exhibition of acontextual cut and paste in the interest of a unbiblical presupposition. .."

At the same token, In much greater scale I'v witnessed scriptural twisting where verses were ripped out of its true genuine message.

It is you who is *presupposing* that Jesus is God.

No unbiased person reading the book of Mark or any other book in the gospel for the first time without going to a trinitarian theological seminary would ever come to the conclusion that Jesus (p) claimed to be sacrifice to salvation nor that he is God.

Until they are brainwashed to Pauline concept of God and salvation.


While throughout the four Gospels, Jesus (p) never speaks about his being God nor that his death serving as a sacrifice to atone for the sins of the world.

Wassalam

erikfadli said...

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

FMM: "..I will not waste my time and yours explaining once again how to a read book in context that you don't even recognize it as scripture..."

Let me clarify my position again:.

I do not believe that the books in what you call New Testament / scripture now as the same as the Gospel frequently mentioned in the Qur’an. The original was ,the revelation bestowed upon Jesus (p) and known to his contemporaries under its Greek name of Evangelion (“Glad Tidings”), on which the Arabicized form Injil is based.

However I still believe that "the source" from which the Gospels derived much of their material still contains *some* of the authentic teachings of prophet Jesus (p) in much less same way as hadiths which record the life of prophet Muhammad (p), kind of mixture of truth and falsehood in it.

FMM: "..Because when I showed once again that your understanding of the Bible was incorrect you would just fall back and claim that it has been corrupted or better yet just change the subject yet again.."

I didnt change any subject. I think I have been clear and not to force understanding to you with in Mark 10 or in Luke 19. What Im saying what what the verse saying that God promise men forgiveness of sin if they repent and do good deeds.

You are trying to force me for an understanding other than what the verse is actuallly saying.

Then you come up with laughable response such as Jesus not under obligation to lecture undergrade course in theology. Im not even sure how I can respond on this one.

Wassalam

erikfadli said...

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم


FMM:
"..For some reason they mistook a Socratic effort at enlightenment as a denial of presidential authority.."

Hmm... so from this this ancient philosophy is what your version of God and salvation ultimately takes its origin...

Wassalam