Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله


Advanced Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Nad_M

  1. https://truthanvil.blogspot.com/2020/08/islam-critiqued-needs-updating-to.html?m=0
  2. The act of "creation" did not immidiately result in a fully developped, completed human being. "Creation" of man in the Quran is used in reference to the earliest stages, explicitly putting God at the forefront of the event, when inorganic compounds were involved. It is the stage referred to prior as impossible to perform without involving an intelligent cause.That stage is then followed by the action of fashioning and molding before reaching the stage of man's completion This verse, addressing the whole human race, says there was first creation, then fashionning, prior to the presentation of the completed creature to the angels Mankind has known 2 types of origins, a unique one that never repeated itself again, that sprung from inorganic matter, and the other that is ongoing, from a drop These set of verses consistently and literally say, the progeny of an entity that originated from inorganic material, spread through some "lowly fluid" i.e. the sperm. It was spreading this way until a point came where it was made complete and simultaneously filled with God's spirit. A period therefore existed when an "incomplete" species reproduced through the sperm-drop before it developped physically into a fully, complete human being. The first one of those was Adam, who then received the spirit from It isnt difficult to imagine that this evolutionary process, creation from inorganic material, propagation through sexual reproduction, completion and injection with the spirit of God was simultaneouly ongoing with other humans than Adam. This was an entirely new specie, complete both physically and spiritually, varied and numerous enough in order to reproduce among themselves.Adam already had a mate before entering the garden 2:35 as opposed to the convoluted biblical account where God realizes after some time seeing Adam in the garden that So in the Quran, Adam's mate was already there, but was only completed with a spirit after him, since Adam was the first whom God completed with a spirit and subsequently commanded reverence to him due to his superiority above the angels 2:34. This corroborates what was just said concerning multiple elements being completed and infused with a spirituality very close to the time of Adam's completion.In 71:17-8 the Quran parallels the growth of man out of the earth like a plant does, in a context of providing reasonable proof for the Resurrection. Just as he was originally raised from dust into an elaborate and wonderful creation, so to will he be brought back to life to face his reckoning. As said in 38:71-2, Allah announces to the angels that He will create a mortal, and that when this mortal becomes complete with the spirit from God, to prostrate before him. The last step of human evolution is thus linked in the Quran not only to its physical completion but also to mankind having being filled with a spirit to become God's vicegerent 2:30.Man has both a principal and a secondary nature. His secondary nature returns to dust and his essence is related to Allah. This is why the Quran attributes the spirit to Allah and the body to the earth 38:71-72. A similar notion can be found in the Hebrew Bible in The soul therefore does not die, only the nafs, the self does 3:185,21:35. It is this spirit coming from Allah, infused into Adam for the first time, to inspire him the understanding of good and evil that creates the human thirst for guidance and worship This is the spark, when nurtured and developed, leads one to fulfil the goal of human creation; the worship of God.
  3. The Quran doesnt give a timeframe for Adam's creation, as seen from the previous posts, but does speak of a process that led to his completion, from basic inorganic elements to a physically complex and spiritualy aware human being. The verses read as a whole certainly give credence to "a" theory of evolution, not necessarily "the" theory currently generally accepted and which is in constant review.The primary opposition to the theory of evolution, from religious dogmatists, is that they hold that it challenges the dignity of man. The proponents of this idea fail to recognize that all scriptures speak of man's origins from dust, and other earthly insignifant lifeless materials whose combination by the Best and Wise Creator resulted in a wonderful being endowed with consciousness.The Quran in multiple places argues from the angle that man, whether at his origins or when he became able to reproduce as a completed specie, is not made from some rare or invaluable material.There was a time where he was This as a side note, doesnt say he came from nothing, but that he was of insignificant importance and complexity compared to his fully developped stage. Somewhere else he is reminded how he came Man is ultimately defined by his will and desire. It is not the origin of a thing that matters per the Quran, but the final reach of a thing As John the Baptist said, when rebuking the Rabbis, God can create children of Abraham out of stone. The Grand Quran is a book of spiritual guidance and all of its statements are meant at stimulating spiritual growth, not scientific knowledge so the idea that it must provide a detailed description of the origin of life is misplaced. When it does allude to such process, its spiritual aim, as is clear from the context, includes the humbling of mankind by pointing to the earthly elements and water at its origins, as well as providing an argument for the simplicity of the concept of resurrection None of its statements however, no matter the subject treated, are at odds with factual information, whether historical, archeological, scientific etc.
  4. Adam is generally taken to be the first man, but nowhere does the Quran say so, or that there were no creations before him. It only says he was the first human entrusted to be a vicegerent on Earth. In fact when citing names and lineages in the history of mankind that were chosen for prophethood above other nations, Adam is included in the list 3:33. As the most recent studies have shown, the genetic variation observed among the world's population loses its power the further we go back in time. The current human population can be traced to a single man and woman, if that couple is placed, according to estimates anywhere between 100.000 to 500.000 years ago. This does not rule out that they were part of a larger population with whom their descendants could mate. As ancient modern humans dispersed, some groups settled and grew, while others became extinct.When the Quran speaks of the creation of the human race, it consistently implies the action of fashioning, molding, forming, perfecting 40:64,64:3,87:2 starting with an extract/sulala of various inorganic, earthly elements 15:26,23:12,32:7,37:11,55:14 and water 21:30,24:45,25:54. Obviously the absence of organic life entails it originated from inorganic compounds. In some of these verses it speaks of dust, dry clay at others of muddy, sticky clay, indicating that a combination of elements (the aforementionned water and dry matter) was involved at the beginning of the process.All languages inherently accept exceptions unless the statement is clearly absolute, or that no other statements from the same source exist to allow the exclusion. The Quran speaks in several places of different non organic compounds at mankind's origins and in none of these verses does it make an absolute assertion.There is an impressive amount of theories to explain the great mystery of how the very first gene and self replicating molecule originated, among them one that focuses on montmorillonite clay. This abundant, inorganic blend of minerals is known to be a chemical catalyst, the crucial precursor to RNA formation, as well as a means by which chemical reactions can be confined and protected until the possible development of cellular membranes. But until now science has been unable to test and repeat any of those suggestions, including the clay model, to produce the first living cell. Even on a theoretical level, the attempts to explain the pathway from non-living to living matter have so far not achieved the states of complexity that are anywhere near that of the simplest known living systems. In fact some have began arguing that the "p-value" (calculated probability for a hypothesis to be true) for nature to produce the complexity of the genetic code is so small that it should be soundly rejected by science.The only counter to this inevitable conclusion is the multiverse theory, the existence of an infinite number of unseen, untestable entities, which is actually just a way of conceding that the only alternative to obvious reality is utter absurdity. Only intelligent minds can produce significant levels of functional information. Since even the simplest lifeforms require high levels of information, the scientific evidence for intelligent design becomes impressive. Even then, one still has to explain how does intelligent design initiate an information without any previous examples, references, experiences. This, the Quran answers through the phrase The connotation of the word is that, contrary to all creative endeavours, He creates without any blueprint, preexisting inspiration, experience. He does so through His word This is why God is the "best of creators" as often stated in the Quran.
  5. The Quran leaves no room to the kind of conjecture trinitarians are known for when approaching their Bible, let alone the Quran. Christians feel comforted whenever they superficially approach the Quran and find these familiar Christological themes. They are sometimes bold enough to assume the Quran is confirming their doctrines. After all, none other than Jesus is referred to as God's word, His messiah or a RUH from Allah. But by doing so Christians are missing the consistent Quranic approach of taking up the major trinitarian themes and labels associated to Jesus, then recasts them in a monotheistic, unitarian perspective. It is the case with the kalima, just as with the RUH/spirit or the name "messiah". As to the kalima and its relation to Jesus, the Quran says 3:45"Allah gives you good news with a word/kalima from Him (of one) whose name is the Messiah, Isa son of Marium". Kalimatun, which means word or statement has a feminine designation. But what follows is in the masculine, making Jesus and word/statement 2 distinct entities. This is because Jesus is the product of the creative word, not the word itself 4:171"The messiah, Jesus, son of Mary was none other than Allah's envoy and His statement/kalima, He casted it towards Mary including a life giving breath from Him (Allah)". It literally says Jesus, the human prophet, born of Mary, was a statement cast towards his mother. It does not say the intangible "pre-incarnate" Jesus was a word cast to Mary. This is what one with a hellenistic theological background would read into the verse. The precision of the verse does not end here. It does not say the word was cast inside of Mary, rather ila/towards Mary. For that "pre incarnate" Jesus to become flesh, it would have necessitated for it to enter Mary. So clearly, no human being was literally cast to Mary, and neither does it say it entered her. Simply, Allah cast his statement, His command to Mary. That statement allowed the miraculous process by which a particular human being came to existence. Jesus was not God's word, as denoted in 3:45 but became God's word. Exactly as Adam manifested the creative word of God. Or as the prophet Yahya/John was the manifestation of God's word, given the particular circumstances of his birth 3:39"Allah gives you the good news of Yahya verifying a word/kalima from Allah". Kalimatullah in these contexts is thus not some pre-existing entity seperate from God in an intangible shape before becoming physical. It is a command from God that allows a process by which certain physical entities come into being. Adam, Jesus or John did not pre-exist as intangible entities prior to manifesting God's word in physical form. Further, the word of God manifests in different ways in this world, not only physical. Kalimatullah is also used in the sense of God's promise 6:34,115,10:64,18:27 etc. Such divine word is a command that can never be reversed or altered once issued 13:41, it can be the promise of victory and assistance to the messengers and their followers 37:171-2 or the promise of chastisement to the rejecters 58:21 or again the promises of miracles or blessings whether in this life or the next. This is because, as repeatedly said in the Book, Allah's statement is truthful and He never breaks His promise 10:55,33:4,38:34"The truth then is and the truth do I speak" 39:20"Allah will not fail in (His promise)". Jesus and John were mortals, made from exactly the same elements as other humans, and could not have come into existence without God's word 2:117"Be". The word symbolizes that nothing escapes His grasp in the chain of causality. He may use His command to initiate the chain by creating out of nothing, or He may us it to intervene in a pre-existing chain of causality so as to result in the outcome that He wills 3:59"Surely the likeness of Isa is with Allah as the likeness of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him, "Be", and he was". This is an instance of Allah using His word to complete a process. Both Adam and Jesus came to completion through Allah's word. Prior to that completion Adam was fashionned from inorganic earthly elements, or as the Quran quotes Allah 38:75"him whom I created with My own hands". Mankind is a specie that has a special connection with its Creator. He took special care in fashioning and forming it. When that fashionning process reached physical completion, Adam was ready to receive the spirit from Allah 38:71-2. It is at that point that Allah "said to him, "Be", and he was". That command is what triggered all components within Adam, the physical and the spiritual to fuse and ignite, resulting in what is understood by a "human being"; a creature whose flesh and spirit function simultaneously and interdependantly. Without God's word, the mere entry of the spirit within the flesh would not cause this creature to function as a human being. One can finish building a robot, then place its batteries, but it will only function once the switch is turned on. God's word is the switch that ignites the human being, allowing its material and spiritual components to work together. The process that preceded Allah's command was different in Jesus' case. Unlike Adam, he was not first fashionned from earthly substance, but through the RUH that entered the body of his mother so as to allow her to conceive. At some point during the development of the fetus, Allah's word was cast towards Mary. This was the trigger allowing the fusion of the RUH that had entered her prior, with the fetus, resulting in a creature whose flesh and spirit function together. A question one might ask is why, if all human beings, including Adam and Jesus, were brought to completion through Allah's word, why did the Quran choose to parallel Adam specifically with Jesus in order to deny Jesus' divinity? Adam is the archetypical human being, made from the dust of the earth. No human being after Adam, endowed with the spirit of Allah, is closer to its original earthly substance than him. In the context of refuting Jesus' divinity, and stressing his humanity, no point of reference among any human being is more appropriate than the human who is closest to its wordly, earthly, humble origins than Adam. Further, the one who is alleged to be a god-man, is as helpless in the process of his completion than a human being made of dust. What kind of deity cannot come into existence in whatever shape and nature, without the intervention of a higher power? The main idea behind the statement, "then said to him "Be" and he is", often used for God's creative action, is that Allah masters the laws of causality. Grammatically, the statement "kun fa yakun/be and he is" is an idiom. Its constituents, like the gender/tenses/persons remain unchanged regardless of the sentence in which the idiom is integrated. The present tense, although speaking of a past event, also serves as a literary device to involve the audience/reader, making him the spectator of the event as it is unfolding, as if the coming to existence is happening now, in front of him.
  6. What is the point of a miracle of virgin birth, in addition confirming an awaited prophecy, while the woman supposed to carry the child is married? The Quran protects and upholds Jesus' miraculous conception in a far more truthful, efficient way than is done in the Greek writings. First and foremost, the Quran does not give any credence to the tribal salvific messianic figure Jesus was supposed to fulfil. The Gospels writers on the other hand needed to fulfill the HB's tribal requirements for the messiah. This led them to invent 2 notoriously conflicting genealogies through an adoptive father, Joseph. Jesus in those writings thus became known under a patronym, "son of Joseph". This leaves a whole list of damaging indicators in its trail, undermining the very reason the writers had to result to such falsehood. Not the least being the flaws in both genealogies cancelling any legitimate claim to the throne of the King Messiah (the cursed Jeconiah should not be among his ancestors). And why would they have any interest in Mary's line? Again, a woman's lineage is irrelevant in Jewish law when establishing ancestry. To argue that Luke's genealogy is that of Mary (her name isn't listed) would undermine these authors' credibility even further, in relation to Jewish law. In addition to providing a fabricated lineage, the writers were now, in their eyes, "protecting" Mary's public image and that of Jesus. She was now engaged before her pregnancy and married when she delivered, not, as the Quran says, completely alone when she met God's messenger, as well as all throughout her pregnancy, including when she secluded hersef to deliver the baby. This turned the virgin birth into a secret yet this particular miracle was, according to those same writers that base themselves on the infamous mistranslation of Isa7:14 in the Greek Septuagint, one of the most crucial fulfilements of HB prophecies. This "secret" virgin birth supposedly was among the signs the Israelites had to know from the very beginning to identify the awaited savior Isa7:14,Matt1:22"All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel". It is no surprise that in his purported letters, Ignatius the bishop of Antioch and supposed disciple of the apostles declares that Mary's virginity and child bearing were secrets only made known to the world through a "star". The fact is that this non-existent virgin birth prophecy of the HB was inserted into the NT narrative retrospectively. From a theological viewpoint, Christians needed to solve the problem of having the perfect, sinless human sacrifice born of a human mother, while all humans are sinful in nature and that they pass on that depravity to their progeny. They thus neglected and forgot the true purpose of that miracle (as will be explained), and assumed that the object of the virgin birth was to guarantee Jesus would be born without the inevitable sinful stain. Back in these times people didnt know that women contribute just as much if not a bit more (in terms of genetic material) to the formation of a baby than men did. And so by believing that women were a mere passive vessel, in the absence of a human father Jesus would necessarily be free of original sin. So Jesus had to be known, according to the NT writers themselves, as special since the very beginning, yet not only was the virgin birth obscured to the people through the absurd introduction of a husband but the NT also repeatedly says how the young Jesus was completely unknown in any particular way prior to his ministry in adulthood, see Matt13 for example. The absurdity doesnt end here, the same NT that tells us his people knew nothing special about him prior to his ministry also tells us of all the wonderful signs and wonders surrounding his first moments as an infant, the celestial signs that prompted both friends and foes to look for him even from outside Palestine, people such as the Magi coming "from the east" to worship the newly born "king of the Jews". Signs of the messiah's impending rise were supposedly so obvious that king Herod, fearing for his throne, began slaughtering all male infants born in Bethleem at that particular time. Mary was prompted to flee with her son to Nazareth to hide and protect him Matt2. Part of the NT establishes the fact that it was well known in and outside Palestine that the awaited savior had come, and countless people identified him with Jesus since his youngest days. Elizabeth for instance refers to Mary as "mother of my Lord" as she saw her pregnant Lk1. Shepherds, informed by the angels, rushed to Bethleem to see the newly born messiah. After confirmation Lk2:17"they spread the word concerning what had been told them about this child, and all who heard it were amazed at what the shepherds said to them". Anna, the daughter of Penuel as well as Simeon recognized in the newly born Jesus the awaited savior and told others about him Lk2. Both rabbis and laymen at the Temple were astonished at the child Jesus' display of wisdom and knowledge. And yet we read elsewhere that nobody knew of the virgin birth miracle, that Jesus was unknown in any special way prior to adulthood. Astoundingly, the NT writers also paint Mary and Joseph, the very ones who witnessed first hand the virgin birth, as completely ignorant of what Jesus meant when he stated that he "must be concerned with the affairs of my Father". Jesus made that statement in response to Mary's scolding him because of his disappearance Lk2:42-50. Did Mary and Joseph suddenly forget all the miraculous signs and fame surrounding his infancy just 12 years after his birth, as if they had never heard of them and their obvious implications as regards his identity? In another context, Mary, who gave birth to him miraculously, and his brothers James and Jude even thought he had gone mad Mk3. The Quran, far from copying the above NT absurdities, says the virgin birth was a miracle made known to all. As already said, it would be foolish to provide a miracle of virgin birth, while the woman supposed to carry the child is married. For an unmarried woman, in addition known for her piety and chastity, to show up with her own baby would immidiately attract the eyes of an entire community upon her, maximizing the impact of the absolving speech of the infant Jesus at once, as vividly and eloquently described in sura Maryam. None would have spontaneously came to her had she been married prior, nobody would have inquired because there would have been no scandal of a woman dedicated to worship in God's temple suddenly showing up with a child. According to the NT depiction, the married Mary now has to prove the vigin birth miracle by going out of her way and pleading repeatedly to the unsuspecting community. It would have been inefficient and debasing. In the Quranic version of the story, the blessed Mary did not need to utter a single word to defend her innocence, preserving her honor and avoiding her the difficulty of having to argue and dispute with a crowd, and neither did the child need to be overexposed so as to repeat his speech senselessly. Son of Mary is an appelation used by those that testify to the miraculous circumstances of Jesus' birth. Christians on the other hand, in their desire to make him fit a particular figure of the HB, neglect and obscure that major miracle. Jesus is instead the son of Joseph, and by extension, son of David, although no tribal affiliation is possible due to the NT's own admission of the virgin birth. We thus constantly see, whenever one delves into the NT narrative, how confused the whole matter is and how clear it becomes if seen through the Quranic lens. The Quranic matronym "son of Mary" carried many other deep implications. In 3:45 the angels give Mary the news that she will soon conceive of a child. This information in itself doesnt indicate anything special, unless it was given to a barren old lady with an equally barren old husband, as in Sara's case who was consequently incredulous at the angelic declaration 11:71-3. Mary would have naturally understood she would conceive in a normal way and there wouldnt have been any reason for her to be surprised at the news 3:47,19:20-1. But by adding the information that the future child will be named "son of Mary", among other names, the angels were telling her he would be born without the agency of a father, in a miraculous way. Again, in semitic tradition a person was identified by the father's name so nothing could have been more striking in the psyche of a woman of the time to be told that her son will not be identified by his affiliation to a male, but to a woman. This miraculous conception is a sign not only Jesus would be known by, but also his mother and the name "son of Mary" implies exactly that; she would jointly share this sign with him forever as both of their names will be mentionned together 23:50,21:91"and made her and her son a sign for the worlds". Here, Jesus as well as his mother were chosen to be made jointly, "A" single sign of the power of the Maker and Creator over all things. So from a Quranic perspective, that miracle equally sets Mary and Jesus appart from humanity. Before discussing the implications of this sign, it is worthwile noting that by honoring Mary in such a way and joining her name to that of one of the most illustrious individuals to have walked the earth, God has defeated in His final revelation and until the resurrection, the slanderous talk of some among her contemporaries and those that followed, who wanted to put a stain on her and abase her. As regards the sign, it consists in demonstrating how the resurrection of bodies isnt a difficult task to God. We deem it impossible for a female to give life without the necessary biological process yet God did it, so just as He easily creates life in conditions we think are impossible then similarily He is able to bring the dead back to life even if the conditions make it unfeasable from our perspective. The rejection of the concept of resurrection by many Jews of the time adds to the relevancy of that miracle. One can even argue that Jesus was given the greatest evidence for resurrection among God's prophets who all equally stressed the importance of that tenet to their people. This is because Jesus is the only explicit case in the prophetic history where a human's birth did not result from mating. The Quran doesnt even state that Adam was born in such a way, ie that he was not the result of sexual reproduction. Other miraculous births are recorded in the Quran, including around the time of Jesus as was the case for the prophet John/Yahya. But they primarily served the purpose of a reward and were not meant to be disclosed and shared openly other than within the circle of the people concerned. Jesus' birth not only was different than all others in its prominence because as already said, intercourse between a man and a woman did not even precede it, but also because it was primarily meant as a sign for all of humanity. Both came to being Through God's creative word 3:59"Surely the likeness of Isa is with Allah as the likeness of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him, "Be", and he was". In terms birth, the particularities of John or Jesus' births, do not make any of them different or special than other human beings in terms of their physical nature, neither were these miraculous circumstances necessary to accomodate some false notions retrospectively applied to these special circumstances. Jesus did not need to come from a virgin so that he might circumvent inherited human depravity, which is an unscriptural idea, alien to Jesus' teachings. Neither did Jesus need to be a combination of the immaterial/RUH of Allah, with the material/human mother so as to assume his dual human/divine nature. All humanity has exactly this same dual aspect as Jesus, without any of us being divine. As to uniqueness, Allah's has exalted some prophets above others in particular aspects 2:253,17:55 like in the manner in which revelation was bestowed upon them or in the type of signs they were given to confirm their prophethood, or in the universality of their message. But whatever was the special knowledge distinction or ability with which they excelled their people, the prophets always attributed them to God 12:37-40,27:15-19. Despite these different aspects by which Allah has exalted some prophets above others, Muslims must regard all prophets and messengers as equals 2:136,3:84"we do not make distinction between any of them, and to Him do we submit".
  7. How is Jesus from David, given that tribal affiliation in Judaism runs through the biological father and that Jesus had none? That is why by the way, we see Jesus in the NT described and known with "son of Joseph", an appellation that is irrelevant in establishing tribal lineage (only possible through physical kinship, not adoption) and that undermines the virgin birth miracle which Jesus was supposed to fulfill. The Quran on the other hand calls him "son of Mary" for several intricate reasons, including enforcing the fact he had no earthly father, adoptive or else. Whenever Jesus is quoted as addressing the Israelites, he does not once call them "my people" or "my nation" as other Israelite prophets like Moses are quoted as saying in the Quran. Jesus always calls them "Bani Israel" because they, contrary to him, could trace their lineage up to Israel from their fathers, which wasnt his case. Jesus had no worldly father, neither one invloved in his conception, nor the made up one of the NT whom the writers needed to create a messianic lineage. It is also interesting that when Jesus testified in the cradle in defence of his mother did so by clarifying his identity, he states among other thing him being "dutiful" to his mother only, contrary to another miraculous birth, that of John/Yahya who was made "dutiful" to both parents 19:14. This is because, again, Jesus had no father contrary to John.
  8. An in depth analysis of Isaiah 42 and how it applies to the same prophet whom Moses prophesied at Sinai
  9. This thread and the other ones initiated by tek91 have provided more than enough evidence testifying to the untenable nature of the Christian position in light of history and the Hebrew Bible, and especially as regards to their depiction of Isa (alayhissalam), the slave of Allah, and what his mission was supposed to accomplish. The inconsistencies and overall theological and factual confusions on the matter demonstrate how true the Quran is when it states about this group of people "most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture"
  10. Irrelevant argument again. Historians did not record every event in history. The reason this "absence of evidence doesnt equate to evidence of absence" cannot apply to the NT tale is that we do have seismic records of the period, none of which confirming the NT. Which astronomical records do we have by Arabian historians contemporaries of the prophet Muhammad?
  11. Sure. Flour on top. Blood sprinkled on the sides and the base of the altar. Animal meat placed on top was washed prior. At no point does flour mix with blood
  12. Where does Iesous state that this prayer is only for such people?
  13. He did not appear resurrected to those very ones he made the promise to.
  14. Yes. It has already been established that Christians trust in a God that murders his innocent son to cleanse those Christians from a sinful nature he purposefully burdened them with.
  15. Had it been the "goat of God" it would have been more in line with HB laws. The paschal lamb was a thanksgiving offering, not a sin offering, contrary to what the NT writers thought. See this previous post https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235072303-why-many-jews-do-not-believe-yeshua-is-the-messiah/?do=findComment&comment=3363582
  16. He does not deal harshly. Neither in terms of judgement nor righteousness. The Christian paradigm in the other hand is that God set a standard of righteousness impossible to attain and has thus condemned mankind to hell. His offering was "Perhaps" they might sin. How does that fit even closely what Iesous is supposed to have accomplished? And nobody denies blood is a valid sin offering, if certain conditions are met. None of which were fulfilled in Iesous' crucifixion. See this previous post https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235072303-why-many-jews-do-not-believe-yeshua-is-the-messiah/?do=findComment&comment=3363651 Those interested can further see this explanation, detailing why Iesous' sacrifice is invalide per Jewish law https://truthanvil.blogspot.com/2020/03/cira-international-discuss-jewish-law.html?m=1 What is discussed and repeatedly proven by now, is that besides blood, many avenues exist in the HB to obtain forgiveness of sins. Here is a previous post demonstrating the matter and which the Christian apologist will not and cannot address https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235072303-why-many-jews-do-not-believe-yeshua-is-the-messiah/?do=findComment&comment=3363733
  17. Yes. Did Iesous act in a way that would deliberately bring about his death?
  18. Sure. So one can be blameless in God's sight all the while being sinful and deserving hellfire?
  19. Great. Please give a specific example of evil created by Iesous. No amount of sophistry can escape the explicit statement of the HB.
  20. It was a curtain and nothing else. A piece of fabric tears in 2 from an earthquake? Sure. He also says zombies started walking the streets of Jerusalem. How is that related to the earthquake? The only recorded eclipse closest to Jesus' location and time of death occured in the year 29 in the Persian Gulf which doesnt fit the Jesus chronology and would have been of negligible impact in Jerusalem, 100s of miles away.
  21. He is not promoting anything. He is mocking Christian beliefs and Iesous' crucifixion. Paul admits it when he says that "but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles"
  22. Sure they do. The simplest way to find out is asking a Jew, not a Christian. Go there http://judaismsanswer.com/yosef.htm Yes. And that is because, as explained, ben Yoseph is a conditional prophecy. If Jews repent he will not appear. Only ben David will.
  23. Because it lists them as criteria by which an individual is to be identified. Scripture isnt required to state whether that individual gets 3 or 10 chances at it through successive deaths and resurrections until he checks all the boxes. Onus is upon Christians, who needed to restrospectively paint the failure of their messiah as purposeful, to show where does it say the messiah must die, resurrect then return to accomplish his task. Obviously, and as no Christian disagrees, none of the HB messianic criteria ever occured anywhere near Jesus' era, and in fact the least that can be said is that the 1st century, its overall state of upheaval, was the antithesis of what the messianic era is supposed to be. That is why Paul was met with fierce resistence when he preached to Jews and instead turned to the pagans who had no clue of what the Hebrew bible taught. He could now distort and reinterpret every aspect of it, as well as Jesus' teachings so as to fit the paradigms of the pagans he was preaching to.
  24. Sure. Because one needs to resort to "make believe" through out of context cut and paste, as well as mistranslations. Nothing about Iesous in Isaiah 53.
  25. Was this "reason" they found relevant to Roman courts?
  • Create New...