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

Rabbi Refuting Christian Concept Of Atonement

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Veteran Member

In this video the Rabbi addresses the Christian misconception that the Old Testament teaches that there is no atonement for sin without a blood sacrifice.

Short version:

Long version:

There is also an interesting video on a slightly related topic regarding Acts 21.

Edited by Haider Husayn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

He is right, the Bible doesn't say that the only method of atonement is blood but that doesn't necessarily mean that the Christian idea of Jesus being some sort of sacrifice for the world's sin wouldn't fit with Jewish scripture. Afterall, he admits that blood is for atonement and one method of atonement is through blood. So the Christian belief that Jesus was some sort of sacrifice for the world's sin can still stand in the context of the Holy Bible. Though his point is good to bring up with more fundamental Christians, it's not a complete flawless debunking of the idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
So the Christian belief that Jesus was some sort of sacrifice for the world's sin can still stand in the context of the Holy Bible. Though his point is good to bring up with more fundamental Christians, it's not a complete flawless debunking of the idea.

For us Muslims, Jesus, as a holy and noble prophet of God, is worthy of the highest respect.

But I am sorry I really don't understand all this hullaballoo about Jesus' sacrifice.

By any yardstick, the individual sacrifices of Imam Hussain and each member of his family would far exceed the pain endured by Jesus - perhaps by many light-years.

I am not trying to put down Jesus’ sacrifices. But the fact remains that even Prophet Muhammad did not go through the pain and anguish that Imam Hussain went through. Nor perhaps did any other prophet.

We believe that the Imam's sacrifice, which was also ordained by God, had a purpose, but it certainly was not meant to atone for the world's sins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

^ ^ ^

I don't believe in the story as it happened in the Bible. I just don't think that was how the events happened. But I don't think all the ideas surrounding Jesus having to die don't fit in with the Jewish texts in Bible. That's just not what I think actually happened because I follow the Quran.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

He is right, the Bible doesn't say that the only method of atonement is blood but that doesn't necessarily mean that the Christian idea of Jesus being some sort of sacrifice for the world's sin wouldn't fit with Jewish scripture. Afterall, he admits that blood is for atonement and one method of atonement is through blood. So the Christian belief that Jesus was some sort of sacrifice for the world's sin can still stand in the context of the Holy Bible. Though his point is good to bring up with more fundamental Christians, it's not a complete flawless debunking of the idea.

i think you are seeing things from the other way round.while you identified that the rabbi is not denying blood sacrifice as one method mentioned in his bible,there is no where the rabbi denied blood as being a method.so even if that one method fits in ,you have ignored the points of christianity which the rabbi identifies that does not fit into the bible.

the question is not whether or not blood sacrifice is acceptable.the question is if blood sacrifice is the only method to attain atonement.to the christian if you do not accept Jesus' alleged "blood sacrifice" then you'd go to hell fire.to them that is the only way for atonement.here i am not even talking about whether or not Jesus truly died.i am assuming for argument sake he did.but even if he did,is his "blood" the only way to atonement?

also,the bottom line for atonement to be obtained repentance is the way and a must.so the christian concept that you throw all the laws out of the window and look up to Jesus' "blood" is faulty without repentance( and upholding the laws) which has always being an open door to forgiveness.

the question also the rabbi raised is where does the scripture say that the blood of Jesus (the messiah) is what must be shed when he was talking about leviticus and sacrifice on the altar.he is simply pointing out that christian theology is made up and not found in the scripture exactly as they have made it up and propagate it today or used it to threaten others that if they dont believe as they do,others will go to hell fire.

Edited by mehdi soldier
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

i think you are seeing things from the other way round.while you identified that the rabbi is not denying blood sacrifice as one method mentioned in his bible,there is no where the rabbi denied blood as being a method.so even if that one method fits in ,you have ignored the points of christianity which the rabbi identifies that does not fit into the bible.

the question is not whether or not blood sacrifice is acceptable.the question is if blood sacrifice is the only method to attain atonement.to the christian if you do not accept Jesus' alleged "blood sacrifice" then you'd go to hell fire.to them that is the only way for atonement.here i am not even talking about whether or not Jesus truly died.i am assuming for argument sake he did.but even if he did,is his "blood" the only way to atonement?

also,the bottom line for atonement to be obtained repentance is the way and a must.so the christian concept that you throw all the laws out of the window and look up to Jesus' "blood" is faulty without repentance( and upholding the laws) which has always being an open door to forgiveness.

the question also the rabbi raised is where does the scripture say that the blood of Jesus (the messiah) is what must be shed when he was talking about leviticus and sacrifice on the altar.he is simply pointing out that christian theology is made up and not found in the scripture exactly as they have made it up and propagate it today or used it to threaten others that if they dont believe as they do,others will go to hell fire.

No, no. What I was saying was that the idea that Jesus was a blood sacrifice for the sins of humanity can fit in the Bible, but not the idea that blood is the only method of atonement. There is a difference between a Christian saying "Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice for our sins " and "Blood is the only method of atonement so Jesus must die"

The difference is that the first phrase generally means Jesus is just the one who carries the burden of all of humanity's sins to the altar (the cross) and dies for them. This is why mainstream Christianity doesn't offer animal sacrifices like Muslims still do because Jesus was the sacrificial lamb. But this does not mean that the act of blood sacrifice is seen as the only method of atonement. As in the only way to be forgiven for one's sins is blood sacrifice. That particular idea is implied by the second phrase and is usually a gross misunderstanding generally propagated by Evangelical groups. They have this idea that whenever a sin was done, blood sacrifice was needed to be forgiven.

However, the idea that Jesus carried our sins on the cross is not contradicted NOR is it confirmed by the Jewish scriptures rather it is an idea unique to the New Testament. But it doesn't contradict the Jewish texts, it's just not mentioned or foretold in them. All the Jewish scriptures confirm is the coming of the Messiah, most of everything else is from the New Testament alone. But none of them really contradict the Old Testament. Jesus could have been just a prophet in the New Testament like he is in the Quran and it still wouldn't have contradicted the Old Testament because it does not foretell the specific events of the Messiah's life such as whether he was supposed to live through persecution (as in the Quran) or die on the cross for our sins, it only foretells his coming.

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

brother "Saintly_Jinn",

blood sacrifice does not contradict the bible and that is fine.but human sacrifice does contradict the bible.

secondly,there is hardly a christian on the face of the planet that does not believe that Jesus "died" for his sins.infact,anyone who does not believe Jesus is his "saviour" is bound to hell fire.to christians,Jesus' "death" is the only way.he is their "saviour" because he "died" for them.

now if you come up to say that blood sacrifice is not the only way for atonement based on the bible,and even for argument's sake if we accept that human sacrifice is acceptable,then saying blood sacrifice is not the only way for atonement renders the christian threat of hell to others void.this simply means that muslims who do not believe in the alleged death of Jesus cam make it to paradise.in other words,christianity which is centered on the alleged death and resurrection of Jesus is not the only way to attain paradise.there is no christian presently who believes that you can make it without believing in the alleged death of Jesus (ofcourse in the early days of christianity,there were "christians" who doubted and disbelieved in the "crucifixion").the only thing christianity presents for salvation is not "good deeds" but "blood".if it were good deeds or animal sacrifice then islam is more fitting to be the religion that saves.in this regards,i would like you to read Sheikh Ahmad Deedat's "cruci-fixion or cruci-fiction".

also see this here to know that human sacrifice does contradict the bible:

the alleged "sacrifice" of Jesus is also biblically faulty in more than one sense:

a sacrifice must be offered by the guilty party and not by the offended.

also,a sacrifice should portray sincere repentance.does the alleged "crucifixion" demonstrate the sincere repentance by christians?or is it more or less understood as a license to sin more and go free?or is it even effective?has it achieved its aim?because christians are still required to repent and so "some" good works before attaining the salvation which they believe the "crucifixion" gave them.further on,if good works and repentance can attain salvation alongside belief,wasn't this the case even before Jesus and the alleged "crucifixion"?doesn't this show that the alleged "crucifixion" is really useless and needless?why add one more belief which adds to the burden on humanity to attain paradise?one more belief in this case is like one more visa required for paradise.we could do with other beliefs and in particular the belief in One God alongside good deeds to attain salvation.so really,the objective of the "blood of Jesus" becomes a failure because many would perish on its account according to christianity rather than attain salvation through it.so it is no longer a gift but a burden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

brother "Saintly_Jinn",

blood sacrifice does not contradict the bible and that is fine.but human sacrifice does contradict the bible.

secondly,there is hardly a christian on the face of the planet that does not believe that Jesus "died" for his sins.infact,anyone who does not believe Jesus is his "saviour" is bound to hell fire.to christians,Jesus' "death" is the only way.he is their "saviour" because he "died" for them.

now if you come up to say that blood sacrifice is not the only way for atonement based on the bible,and even for argument's sake if we accept that human sacrifice is acceptable,then saying blood sacrifice is not the only way for atonement renders the christian threat of hell to others void.this simply means that muslims who do not believe in the alleged death of Jesus cam make it to paradise.in other words,christianity which is centered on the alleged death and resurrection of Jesus is not the only way to attain paradise.there is no christian presently who believes that you can make it without believing in the alleged death of Jesus (ofcourse in the early days of christianity,there were "christians" who doubted and disbelieved in the "crucifixion").the only thing christianity presents for salvation is not "good deeds" but "blood".if it were good deeds or animal sacrifice then islam is more fitting to be the religion that saves.in this regards,i would like you to read Sheikh Ahmad Deedat's "cruci-fixion or cruci-fiction".

also see this here to know that human sacrifice does contradict the bible:

the alleged "sacrifice" of Jesus is also biblically faulty in more than one sense:

a sacrifice must be offered by the guilty party and not by the offended.

also,a sacrifice should portray sincere repentance.does the alleged "crucifixion" demonstrate the sincere repentance by christians?or is it more or less understood as a license to sin more and go free?or is it even effective?has it achieved its aim?because christians are still required to repent and so "some" good works before attaining the salvation which they believe the "crucifixion" gave them.further on,if good works and repentance can attain salvation alongside belief,wasn't this the case even before Jesus and the alleged "crucifixion"?doesn't this show that the alleged "crucifixion" is really useless and needless?why add one more belief which adds to the burden on humanity to attain paradise?one more belief in this case is like one more visa required for paradise.we could do with other beliefs and in particular the belief in One God alongside good deeds to attain salvation.so really,the objective of the "blood of Jesus" becomes a failure because many would perish on its account according to christianity rather than attain salvation through it.so it is no longer a gift but a burden.

All these questions are easily answerable. First off the idea that good works are unnecessary with faith in Christ and his death on the cross is refuted in the New Testament itself.

What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”

Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.

In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead. --The Epistle of James 2:14-26

So, even in the New Testament the idea that just because one believes in the crucifixion that good works play no part in the salvation of believers is completely refuted. The early church fathers of the Roman Catholic Church including Epistles such as the one attributed to James to refute the heresies that just "believing" was enough to enter Paradise and honestly such beliefs have only been propagated by certain Evangelical groups. The vast majority of Christians in the world don't believe that once Christ's sacrifice is accepted by the believer that good deeds are no longer needed as the New Testament says that with the faith should come good deeds from the believer otherwise the person's faith is not alive, but dead, and therefore the person may as well have not accepted the faith at all.

Let me put it this way, if a person does what is good in our eyes but does not acknowledge the Prophet Muhammad or the Quran, is that person saved from hell, at least completely? Of course not. So acknowledging Muhammad, and thus truth, is one of the requirements to enter Paradise in the exact same manner that accepted Christ's death and resurrection is necessary for salvation to most Christians. It is the obtaining of knowledge and acceptance of the truth that knowledge contains that acts as a good work that aids in our salvation. Same concept, different knowledge. This is generally how Christians accept Jesus' crucifixion.

Now, as to whether the human sacrifice of Jesus could fit in with the Jewish scriptures, I don't think there is anything really contradicting in them. The church fathers would not have allowed old scripture that so easily could refute the new and it took many years for the Christians to agree on a canon. Let us not forget that Abraham was willing to kill his son Ishmael and Ishmael willing to die as a sacrifice to God, and God decided to not let it happen. The early church fathers likely felt that human sacrifice was something that could only be done in rare occasions after direct orders by God. And also, again the idea that Jesus was an ultimate sacrifice for all our sins is not the same thing as the idea that "blood is the only method of atonement" The Jews did ritual sacrifices all the time of animals when they felt the sins were great enough to require such an act, as an mere act of piety, or in some rare cases, to appease demons who were troubling them. But as the Rabbi said, blood and death were not the only methods of atonement. He is combating the view that every sin, no matter how small requires blood or death to be atoned for. However, for your average, well versed Christian, Christ died because either the sins of man at that particular time were so great that there was no other way for man's sin to be atoned for OR the sin of Adam was so great in its effects that it wasn't until Christ came and died that those effects could be cleansed from us.

For example, there are some Christian stories that were not included in the Bible that have Jesus going directly into Hell after his resurrection and pulling the believing, such as the old Jewish prophets, out of there and into Paradise. This reflects a form of the latter interpretation Christ's death. But the idea that true belief is done without good deeds and acts of piety and only with "faith" is refuted in the New Testament itself.

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Saintly_Jinn23- an excellent and accurate post.

My response to the first video would be:

I would agree with the rabbi that the Leviticus passage doesn't of itself make atonement the sole means of restoration to God. However a number of related ideas, such as an individual sacrificing himself for others, and sacrifice as a means of restoration to God, certainly are classic Old Testament themes.

On his second video, I am surprised at his inability to get an answer from a stack of books and a professor. The first two commentaries I consulted both said exactly the same thing:

Leaders of the church in Jerusalem were concerned that Paul was against the Jewish customs the Jewish believers in Jerusalem still valued. So, the leaders advised Paul to "sponsor" (pay the sacrificial expenses) four Christian Jews who are fulfilling a vow of consecration. By this, Paul will show the community of Christian Jews in Jerusalem that he is not opposed to their continued observance of certain Jewish customs, though he does not require such observance of Gentiles who come to Jesus...

...The motive behind Paul's sponsorship of these Christian Jews completing their Nazirite vow is explained in 1 Corinthians 9:20: 'And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law. '

In other words, the Early Church continued to offer sacrifices in the Temple not as a matter of religious necessity, but as a matter of custom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Hi Saintly,

Your explanation of James is very good, as it expresses "Faith without works is dead." --- Also "Good works without Faith, are just Good works"

Faith must precede action, so good works are a result of one's Faith, --- and not accounted without Faith, are they?

Therfore, the two must go together.

However, I was a little surprised that, --- after quoting James 2:

21. Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?

--- (and the cross reference gives Genesis 22):

6. So Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering and laid it on Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife, and the two of them went together.

7. But Isaac spoke to Abraham his father and said, “My father!”

And he said, “Here I am, my son.”

Then he said, “Look, the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?”

8. And Abraham said, “My son, God will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering.” So the two of them went together.

9. Then they came to the place of which God had told him. And Abraham built an altar there and placed the wood in order; and he bound Isaac his son and laid him on the altar, upon the wood.

10. And Abraham stretched out his hand and took the knife to slay his son.

11. But the Angel of the LORD called to him from heaven and said, “Abraham, Abraham!”

So he said, “Here I am.”

12. And He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”

---(Another cross reference to Hebrews 11):

17. By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

18. of whom it was said, “In Isaac your seed shall be called,"

19. concluding that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead, from which he also received him in a figurative sense.

The symbolism is noted in the extreme test that God gave Abraham, as Isaac carried the wood for the sacrifice, even as Jesus carried His cross. And Isaac, being the 'promised child,' and through whom God had said, "In Isaac your seed shall be called." --- And Isaac, figuratively as the sacrifice, and as good as dead, --- was raised up to be the father of the nation, as promised.

--- In like manner, Jesus went through death and was raised up to be the First in the nation of Christian believers.

--- This was my surprise, that you would say:

Quote: Let us not forget that Abraham was willing to kill his son Ishmael and Ishmael willing to die as a sacrifice to God, and God decided to not let it happen.

--- Since Ishmael was 14 years older than Isaac, and had been sent away with his mother Hagar when Isaac was a child, and if Isaac was a teenager of perhaps 16 when this test was given, Ishmael would have been 30, and married, and no doubt having his own children by then.

--- I am sure you were aware of the references to Isaac, were you not?

Placid

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Hi Saintly,

Your explanation of James is very good, as it expresses "Faith without works is dead." --- Also "Good works without Faith, are just Good works"

Faith must precede action, so good works are a result of one's Faith, --- and not accounted without Faith, are they?

Therfore, the two must go together.

However, I was a little surprised that, --- after quoting James 2:

21. Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?

--- (and the cross reference gives Genesis 22):

6. So Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering and laid it on Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife, and the two of them went together.

7. But Isaac spoke to Abraham his father and said, “My father!”

And he said, “Here I am, my son.”

Then he said, “Look, the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?”

8. And Abraham said, “My son, God will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering.” So the two of them went together.

9. Then they came to the place of which God had told him. And Abraham built an altar there and placed the wood in order; and he bound Isaac his son and laid him on the altar, upon the wood.

10. And Abraham stretched out his hand and took the knife to slay his son.

11. But the Angel of the LORD called to him from heaven and said, “Abraham, Abraham!”

So he said, “Here I am.”

12. And He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”

---(Another cross reference to Hebrews 11):

17. By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

18. of whom it was said, “In Isaac your seed shall be called,"

19. concluding that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead, from which he also received him in a figurative sense.

The symbolism is noted in the extreme test that God gave Abraham, as Isaac carried the wood for the sacrifice, even as Jesus carried His cross. And Isaac, being the 'promised child,' and through whom God had said, "In Isaac your seed shall be called." --- And Isaac, figuratively as the sacrifice, and as good as dead, --- was raised up to be the father of the nation, as promised.

--- In like manner, Jesus went through death and was raised up to be the First in the nation of Christian believers.

--- This was my surprise, that you would say:

Quote: Let us not forget that Abraham was willing to kill his son Ishmael and Ishmael willing to die as a sacrifice to God, and God decided to not let it happen.

--- Since Ishmael was 14 years older than Isaac, and had been sent away with his mother Hagar when Isaac was a child, and if Isaac was a teenager of perhaps 16 when this test was given, Ishmael would have been 30, and married, and no doubt having his own children by then.

--- I am sure you were aware of the references to Isaac, were you not?

Placid

Just in case you didn't know, Muslims believe that Ishmail was to be sacrificed, not Isaac. The point that the poster was trying to make I think, was that Ishmail was older then Isaac and therefore was the only one that could ever have been refered to as an 'only son'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Just in case you didn't know, Muslims believe that Ishmail was to be sacrificed, not Isaac. The point that the poster was trying to make I think, was that Ishmail was older then Isaac and therefore was the only one that could ever have been refered to as an 'only son'

Hi Maryammm,

I have heartd this said before, but where does it say 'only son'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Hi Maryammm,

I have heartd this said before, but where does it say 'only son'?

Genesis Chapter 22 sometimes reads "only son" but I have seen translations also use "unique son" Either way, we believe it was actually Ishmael (pbuh) put on the altar and when he heard of God's plan from his father agreed that if God saw it best for him to die, then he would go willingly. God spared Ishmael as a reward and it after this incident that Sarah later became pregnant with Isaac.

Genesis implies that Ishmael was disowned or just "put away" before this incident, but in Islamic lore, Abraham continued to visit Ishmael and only put Hagar and her son away to please Sarah and end the family feuding. He always regarded Ishmael as his son with pride.

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Hi Saintly,

Quote from Post 14:

Genesis Chapter 22 sometimes reads "only son" but I have seen translations also use "unique son" Either way, we believe it was actually Ishmael put on the altar and when he heard of God's plan from his father agreed that if God saw it best for him to die, then he would go willingly. God spared Ishmael as a reward and it after this incident that Sarah later became pregnant with Isaac.

Genesis implies that Ishmael was disowned or just "put away" before this incident, but in Islamic lore, Abraham continued to visit Ishmael and only put Hagar and her son away to please Sarah and end the family feuding. He always regarded Ishmael as his son with pride.

Response: --- I see you were quick to respond to the question.

It is interesting to me how you, and others, can seek out one word like “only” in the OT and give it such authority, --- as though it can change history.

22:2 And He said, “Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you.”

If we recap a little bit in ch 12, we see that God promised to make Abraham great, and a great nation, to give the land of Canaan to Abraham’s descendants forever.

Abraham was obedient up to a point, but when it came to his personal safety, he failed.

Notice, --- when there was a famine, they went down to Egypt, and in 12:

11. And it came to pass, when he was close to entering Egypt, that he said to Sarai his wife, “Indeed I know that you are a woman of beautiful countenance.

12. Therefore it will happen, when the Egyptians see you, that they will say, ‘This is his wife’; and they will kill me, but they will let you live.

13. Please say you are my sister, that it may be well with me for your sake, and that I may live because of you.”

--- (Apparently that was a half-truth, because Sarah was Abraham’s half-sister. --- And the incident revealed that Abraham was not totally committed to God. )

Then Sarah’s plan in 16, to have her Egyptian handmaid, Hagar, as a surrogate mother, resulted in trouble. (5) Hagar despised Sarah, Sarah blamed Abraham, (6) Abraham said, “Do what you will with her.” --- Sarah was harsh with her and Hagar fled. (7) The Angel of the LORD found her and encouraged her to go back.

11. And the Angel of the LORD said to her:

“Behold, you are with child,

And you shall bear a son.

You shall call his name Ishmael,

Because the LORD has heard your affliction.

12. He shall be a wild man;

His hand shall be against every man,

And every man’s hand against him.

And he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.”

(This was about B C 1912.)

17:1 When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, “I am Almighty God; walk before Me and be blameless.

2. And I will make My covenant between Me and you, and will multiply you exceedingly.”

3. Then Abram fell on his face, and God talked with him, saying:

4.. “As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you, and you shall be a father of many nations.

5. No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I have made you a father of many nations.

6. I will make you exceedingly fruitful; and I will make nations of you, and kings shall come from you.

7. And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you.

8. Also I give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

15. Then God said to Abraham, “As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name.

16. And I will bless her and also give you a son by her; then I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of peoples shall be from her.”

18. And Abraham said to God, “Oh, that Ishmael might live before You!”

19. Then God said: “No, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his descendants after him.

20. And as for Ishmael, I have heard you. Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly. He shall beget twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation.

21. But My covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this set time next year.”

(This was about B C 1898.)

--- So Ishmael was about 14 when Isaac was born.

And in 21:8, when Isaac was ‘weaned,’ Abraham made a great feast, --- and (9) apparently Ishmael mocked --- and soon after that Hagar and Ishmael were sent away, --- but God kept his promise to make of Ishmael a great nation.

In 22:1. Now it came to pass after these things that God tested Abraham, and said to him, “Abraham!”

And he said, “Here I am.”

2. Then He said, “Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.”

(This was about B C 1872)

--- So Isaac would have been perhaps 16 when this happened.

And Ishmael would have been gone from Abraham for many years.

I agree that Abraham kept in touch with Ishmael as he was his son, and God blessed Ishmael with a family of 12 sons, and they occupied the territory from Iraq south to Egypt.

--- But it is not hard to identify that it was Isaac, from the Quean as well because it speaks of him as a gentile, submissive son, in Surah 37:

101. So We gave him tidings of a gentle son.

102. And when (his son) was old enough to walk with him, (Abraham) said: O my dear son, I have seen in a dream that I must sacrifice thee. So look, what thinkest thou? He said: O my father! Do that which thou art commanded. Allah willing, thou shalt find me of the steadfast.

103. Then, when they had both surrendered (to Allah), and he had flung him down upon his face,

104. We called unto him: O Abraham!

105. Thou hast already fulfilled the vision. Lo! thus do We reward the good.

--- You had previously quoted from James 2:

21. Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?

However, --- if you want to misquote from both the OT and the NT to agree with a hadith, or Muslim Commentator, I guess that is up to you, and your faith.

Placid

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
if you want to misquote from both the OT and the NT to agree with a hadith, or Muslim Commentator, I guess that is up to you, and your faith.

Hi Placid

That is just another one of the contradictions between the Quran and the Bible and we must recognize it as such, rather than quibbling about who is right and who is wrong. Both Christians and Muslims should show respect to differing beliefs rather than insisting on being right.

Would you agree ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

However, --- if you want to misquote from both the OT and the NT to agree with a hadith, or Muslim Commentator, I guess that is up to you, and your faith.

Placid

Oh no, I wasn't trying to do anything like that. I only posted the quote from the Epistle of James to show mehdi soldier that the New Testament refuted the idea that faith without good works earns one their salvation. The Epistle of James merely had the story of Abraham in it to prove its point to the reader. I wasn't agreeing with everything the letter had to say as far as the events of Abraham's life was historically accurate.

I only continued to relate the story of Abraham and the willingness to sacrifice of his son and the willingness of his son to be sacrificed as an example that human sacrifice, as hard as it may be to accept, was not seen as an evil action in and of itself even amongst Islamic religious folklore so it seems unfair to judge the Christians in question as being wrong simply because they believe Jesus was some sort of human sacrifice. The point I was trying to make was that as a Muslim, we shouldn't treat the idea that Jesus was a human sacrifice as being immoral by the standards of Judaism/Islam, but rather only disagree that this is what happened historically. If we Muslims are willing to believe that Abraham and Ishmael would have engaged in a human life offering by the command of God without thinking it as hypocritical to their faith, then we should not be disgusted by the idea preached by most Christians that Jesus actually did such, but should only ask ourselves and our religious doctrine if this was what actually happened.

With my mentioning Ishmael, I wasn't trying to say the Epistle of James was supporting Islam, I was only speaking to mehdi soldier as one Muslim to another because we Muslims believe that Ishmael was the one put on the altar and Isaac was one of Abraham's rewards for his piety and faith shown in that situation. With the Epistle of James, I wasn't trying to say the Epistle of James was 100% historically correct or actually James' words, I only was using it to show mehdi soldier that despite the differences it had historically to our writings, it preached a set of moral virtues that were by our standards fully Islamic. That faith without good works is dead faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Hi Placid

That is just another one of the contradictions between the Quran and the Bible and we must recognize it as such, rather than quibbling about who is right and who is wrong. Both Christians and Muslims should show respect to differing beliefs rather than insisting on being right.

Would you agree ?

Hi Ilove,

Where is the contradiction, when the Quran verifies what the Bible said?

--- The contradiction is between the Quran and whatever teaching led Muslims to believe that the Quran referred to Ishmael in saying, --- "A gentle son" who was submissive.

Whoever devised this, centered his teaching on the word "only" and assumed that the symbol of sacrifice had to have happened with Ishmael while he was the "only" son.

However, the plan of Sarah to have a serrogate mother to give her a child, was not God's plan, so when God fulfilled his promise in giving Abraham and Sarah the "Child of promise," --- this was the "only" son of Abraham and Sarah.

The Quran verifies that Abraham visited Ishmael and built the first Kabah with him and prayed for him that God would give them a peaceful nation,

--- But where does it say in the Quran that Ishmael was the intended sacrifice?

Something else to note is that, --- if God's 'rules of life' applied the same before the law was revealed to Moses as it did afterwards, --- then a boy only comes to the 'age of accountability' at 14

--- Ishmael was circumcised when he was 13, and Isaac was born when Ishmael was 14. --- it was shortly after that that Hagar and Ishmael left Abraham, and God blessed them in a different area altogether.

--- Again the test would wait until after Isaac was 14, the 'age of accountability,' --- and the dating in Genesis seems to indicate that Isaac was about 16.

Therefore, Ishmael would have been about 30.

--- There is more to this but if you believe what your hadith or Commentator says, rather than the Scripture, --- which the Quran 'confirmed,' --- then, as I said to Saintly, --- that is up to you, and your faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(wasalam)

In this video the Rabbi addresses the Christian misconception that the Old Testament teaches that there is no atonement for sin without a blood sacrifice.

Christians claim there is this system that cannot God, for some absurd reason, needs to atone for a sin and cannot just forgive a sin. Then they claim God is forgiving. They do not realise the contradiction. When your sin is atoned for, the sin is paid off with a punishment. Forgiving on the other hand is forgetting about the sin without demanding punishment. It would be like a debtor saying that the debt has been forgiven, and then demanding payment!

The irony is that although Christians claim this system of needing sacrifice to atone for sin is in the Bible, the Jews do not believe in this concept and point out that verses in the Old Testament contradict it.

I recommend this article: http://whatjewsbelieve.org/explanation2.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Its interesting, here that the poster quotes the Rabbi as an authoritative teacher. Yet, the issue with Jews and Christians as opposed to Muslims and Christians is that Jews and Christians disagree on the interpretation of the sacred text of scripture and its authority. Jesus, similarly encountered opposition from the Pharisees during his day, yet offered an entirely new hermeneutic based on the authority of himself, this authority later given to established apostles, empowered by God the Bless Holy Spirit and later entrusted in the sacred oracles we call the canon of scripture delivered to the church.

This issue of interpretation is just that, as it has always been b/w Jews and Christians --- its who gets to interpret the text itself? For Christians it is the authoritative proclamation of the gospel through the lens of fulfilment in Messiah. As opposed to the traditions of men that Christ is always chiding the Pharisess for.

Further, this can be illustrated in the history of debate over Protestants and Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox. Whereas Roman Catholics offer several novel traditions and mount them upon their fellow parishoners as dogmas (papal supremacy, marian dogmas, and prayers to the dead) Protestants have insisted that the sole basis for doctrine and the only rule of faith is the sacred text of scripture.

So, to this Rabbi, we would respond the same way Jesus responded to His apostles;

You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men. Mk. 7:8

As for what Medhi Soldier said here;

brother "Saintly_Jinn",

blood sacrifice does not contradict the bible and that is fine.but human sacrifice does contradict the bible.

You have to qualify that, and the qualification is the issue of purity --- human sin has tainted ALL men, yet Christians have consistently believed that God the Father sent to the Son, born of a woman, pure without blemish and lived a perfect life so that this perfect man could live for us as the first man died and caused us all to die.

secondly,there is hardly a christian on the face of the planet that does not believe that Jesus "died" for his sins.infact,anyone who does not believe Jesus is his "saviour" is bound to hell fire.to christians,Jesus' "death" is the only way.he is their "saviour" because he "died" for them.

now if you come up to say that blood sacrifice is not the only way for atonement based on the bible,and even for argument's sake if we accept that human sacrifice is acceptable,then saying blood sacrifice is not the only way for atonement renders the christian threat of hell to others void.this simply means that muslims who do not believe in the alleged death of Jesus cam make it to paradise.in other words,christianity which is centered on the alleged death and resurrection of Jesus is not the only way to attain paradise.there is no christian presently who believes that you can make it without believing in the alleged death of Jesus (ofcourse in the early days of christianity,there were "christians" who doubted and disbelieved in the "crucifixion").the only thing christianity presents for salvation is not "good deeds" but "blood".if it were good deeds or animal sacrifice then islam is more fitting to be the religion that saves.in this regards,i would like you to read Sheikh Ahmad Deedat's "cruci-fixion or cruci-fiction".

also see this here to know that human sacrifice does contradict the bible:

Mehdi is missing something of value, and its necessary to understand, historical at least Protestant theology holds that God did not only expect someone to die for people, as if that then was the payment for sin and therefore man was free but that God NEEDS mans salvation to be earned, this was done IN Christ who LIVED and DIED for Christians. This means, that Jesus didn't just 'die' but 'lived' and 'died' for all believing Christians on the face of this planet and all who will come to faith. This is why, the wrath of God remains on unbelievers, at the cross the wrath of God was met for the sins of all Christians, but from his very birth Christ REPRESENTED me as the one who would fulfill the righteous standard that I myself cannot in anyway attain due to my sin.

So, at the cross the RIGHTEOUSNESS of Christ was imputed to me, and the sinfulness of all of God's elect people (the church) was imputed to Christ so that he literally suffered and died for our sin. But a savior who dies for a people, leaves a people who still need to earn holiness and that is absolutely impossible according to Christian doctrine. We cannot earn salvation. You may call the Christian doctrine fo total depravity a very morbid doctrine, but this fails to recognize the marvelousness of the Christian doctrine of grace. That a good would save a people undeserving, unholy and depraved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
The contradiction is between the Quran and whatever teaching led Muslims to believe that the Quran referred to Ishmael in saying, --- "A gentle son" who was submissive.

Hi Placid

Do tell us what the Quran says about the son being sacrificed. Please quote relevant verses.

Whoever devised this, centered his teaching on the word "only" and assumed that the symbol of sacrifice had to have happened with Ishmael while he was the "only" son.

That is simply not plausible. The Quran does not refer to an 'only son' ?

However, the plan of Sarah to have a surrogate mother to give her a child, was not God's plan, so when God fulfilled his promise in giving Abraham and Sarah the "Child of promise," --- this was the "only" son of Abraham and Sarah..

What has that to do with the discussion ? It is not mentioned in the Quran anyway.

Mixing up two scriptures and then claiming that this is what the Quran says and this is what the Bible says, so there are no contradictions between them, is not a healthy approach.

If you want to prove that there are no contradictions between the Quran and the Bible, you will have to state what the Quran says without mixing it up with verses from the Bible and you will likewise have to state what the Bible says without mixing it up with verses from the Quran.

Something else to note is that, --- if God's 'rules of life' applied the same before the law was revealed to Moses as it did afterwards, --- then a boy only comes to the 'age of accountability' at 14

--- Ishmael was circumcised when he was 13, and Isaac was born when Ishmael was 14. --- it was shortly after that that Hagar and Ishmael left Abraham, and God blessed them in a different area altogether.

--- Again the test would wait until after Isaac was 14, the 'age of accountability,' --- and the dating in Genesis seems to indicate that Isaac was about 16.

Therefore, Ishmael would have been about 30.

The Quran does not mention the son’s age when the event took place. But it seems that the son to be sacrificed was still very young.

Nor does it say that Isaac was around at the time.

On the contrary, the indications are that the intended sacrifice took place before the birth of Isaac.

There is more to this but if you believe what your hadith or Commentator says, rather than the Scripture

Which hadeeth or commentary are you referring to ? Or are you just speculating ?

the Scripture, --- which the Quran 'confirmed'.

The Quran does not verify the Bible or even the NT.

The expression ‘former scriptures’ refers to the Torah and the Injeel, perhaps among other books. However, while the Torah may (or may not) still be the original, there is no record of the Injeel whatsoever. Let us not deceive ourselves.

We have had this discussion dozens of times before. And I remember distinctly that you have accepted our arguments before but you keep going back. That is neither honest nor is it a healthy discussion style.

Where does it say in the Quran that Ishmael was the intended sacrifice?

It never says it was Isaac. Chapter 37 seems to indicate quite clearly that it was certainly not Isaac.

Unless Abraham had more than two sons, the only possibility is Ishmael.

Where is the contradiction, when the Quran verifies what the Bible said?

The Quran does not mention the Bible or the NT. It mentions the Injeel. And we have had hundreds of discussions where we have proved to you that the Injeel cannot possibly be the same as the NT.

It also mentions ‘the former scriptures’, but does not clarify whether it means which books they are. To assume it is referring to the Bible is fooling yourself and of course, you are surely welcome to do that, if you must.

In any case, contradictions between the Quran and the Bible are strewn all over. It is better to recognize them than to deceive yourself by saying that they don’t exist. If you believe there aren’t any, you are deceiving no one but yourself.

Just one example - the story of the birth of Jesus is different in the two scriptures.

According to the Bible, Mary travelled with Joseph to Bethlehem where Jesus was born.

According to the Quran, she did not travel anywhere. When the pangs of childbirth made her uncomfortable, she withdrew into the wilderness all by herself and Jesus was born there. He spoke from the cradle and told her to shake the branches of a tree in order to nourish herself. So she was in some sort of a grove or garden or bush, not in a place with a manger.

According to the Bible,

  • Mary was engaged to Joseph {Luke 2:5],
  • Mary had travelled with Joseph to Bethlehem [Luke 2:4],
  • Jesus was born in a manger [Luke 2:8],

In the Quran,

  • there is no mention of Joseph or of Mary being engaged to Joseph or of her travelling with him to Bethlehem,
  • When the pangs of childbirth overtook her, she went away presumably to a quiet location – the Quran calls it a remote place - all by herself [19:22], not with Joseph, as the Bible says,
  • Jesus was born in a quiet place outside of town, presumably with trees around [19:24], not in a manger.

Completely different story in the two books !

I think there are many other contradictions as well and they cannot both be right.

I am not saying that the Quran is right and the Bible is wrong.

Not at all.

That is for everyone to decide for themselves.

We must all, however, recognize that there are contradictions galore !

I guess that should be enough for now !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forum Administrators

What we do see in the narrative is, God grants Abraham (as) a son (unnamed), and then the sacrifice story is given. Then, after the story is over, a new context begins in 37:112-113 ("and" We gave him tidings with the birth of Isaac) and ends once Allah speaks about Musa (as) and Harun (as). I agree that this evidence is not absolutely conclusive, but 37:100-113 identifies a birth, a sacrifice story, then Isaac's birth. Moreover, in 11:71, we see that Allah has already identified to Abraham's wife (Sara) that Isaac (as) would have a son and named him (Jacob) before Isaac was born, so Abraham (as) would have already known that Isaac would live long enough to see his offspring, because the promise of Allah is true. To most Muslims this is enough to conclude that the sacrifice story is not referring to Is`haq (as).

The only authority that says it was Isaac is the Torah/Pentateuch, a book which our Prophet (pbuh) told us to neither believe nor disbelieve. The Qur'an doesn't hold that these books have never been changed, but rather, there is enough in the Jewish and Christian scriptures to point towards Islam and Muhammed (pbuh).

Edited by Qa'im
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Saintly_Jinn23- an excellent and accurate post.

My response to the first video would be:

I would agree with the rabbi that the Leviticus passage doesn't of itself make atonement the sole means of restoration to God. However a number of related ideas, such as an individual sacrificing himself for others, and sacrifice as a means of restoration to God, certainly are classic Old Testament themes.

On his second video, I am surprised at his inability to get an answer from a stack of books and a professor. The first two commentaries I consulted both said exactly the same thing:

In other words, the Early Church continued to offer sacrifices in the Temple not as a matter of religious necessity, but as a matter of custom.

Your answer does not address the Rabbi's point. His point was that if Jesus was the sacrifice to end all sacrifices and his sacrifice abrogated the laws of Moses, then why did the Early Christians, including the disciples of Jesus continue to give sacrifices and follow the laws of Moses. Saying the did it 'as a matter of custom' is a dodgy and ambigous statement. If they did it just to 'go with the flow' ignoring the precedent which Jesus set, then they were hypocrites and misguiding people who would surely look to them as leaders of the way of Jesus after him and would, at the very least, be confused. If they were doing it because it was required, it means that Jesus did not abrogate the laws of Moses (as we Muslims and also Jews believe).

So which do you want to admit, that they early Christians and disciples after Jesus were hypocrites who were misguiding and confusing the people OR that Jesus did not abrogate the laws of Moses. These are the only logical conclusions one can come to based on the scripture cited.

To draw a parallel, there were many customs of Pre-Islamic Arabia (like going around the Kaaba naked, entering houses thru other than their doors, drinking wine, rites related to paganism, ursury, etc) that were abrogated by the the Prophet Muhammad. If he would have participated in any of these customs after they were abrogated by revelation, then he would lose his status as a Prophet. He never did that and noone would accept him as a true Prophet if he did (in fact he never did any of these things even before they were abrogated). So how can Christians accept the actions of the early disciples if the were just doing things that were abrogated by Jesus just 'as a matter of custom'. Explain that one to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Your answer does not address the Rabbi's point. His point was that if Jesus was the sacrifice to end all sacrifices and his sacrifice abrogated the laws of Moses, then why did the Early Christians, including the disciples of Jesus continue to give sacrifices and follow the laws of Moses. Saying the did it 'as a matter of custom' is a dodgy and ambigous statement.

Its not 'dodgy' and its not 'ambigous' -- The very fact is that Christians, have always taught that we are under a new, and better covenant. One only need to read 1 Corinthians and the epistle to the Hebrews. We are no longer under the ceremonial and civil laws which pertained to an ethnic group but a people chosen from 'ever tribe, nation, and tongue' those of which do not belong to ethnic Israel therefore are to not follow the uniqueness demanded by the cermonial and civil laws. This is why Christians have taught that Jesus is Prophet, Priest and King of His people. Demonstrate why its ambigous and perhaps we can continue, but as Christians we do not believe that the Old Testament is binding in the same sense it was binding to the Jews who received that very Revelation, on the contrary what we have is an interpretation given by our Lord himself and His holy Apostles regarding how one is to understand the Laws of the Old Testament -- They point to Christ who fulfilled the role of all of those offices.

If they did it just to 'go with the flow' ignoring the precedent which Jesus set, then they were hypocrites and misguiding people who would surely look to them as leaders of the way of Jesus after him and would, at the very least, be confused. If they were doing it because it was required, it means that Jesus did not abrogate the laws of Moses (as we Muslims and also Jews believe).

Not at all, this is Islamic canard. We don't believe that we can follow Jesus in the exact same way, we don't atone for sin, cannot live a perfect life, on the contary we have BEEN crucified with Christ and we have lived the life he lived by our UNION with Him as messiah and Lord. The same way I would venture to say ALL men everyhwere at all times were united IN Adam, Christians are NOW united to the second Adam - The Blessed Lord Jesus Christ.

Secondly, lets not act as if somehow Muslims affirm the dietary Laws of Jews, you don't sacrifice animals and you don't practice Old Testament ceremonial Laws.

So which do you want to admit, that they early Christians and disciples after Jesus were hypocrites who were misguiding and confusing the people OR that Jesus did not abrogate the laws of Moses. These are the only logical conclusions one can come to based on the scripture cited.

This is a false dichotomy, since Christians have, again and this is in our scriptures, our confessions and systematics --- we are in a NEW COVENANT, a BETTER COVENANT according to Hebrews. Your attempt to divide what our Lord taught is simply that - an attempt you've unsuccessfully done so. Its our same Paul who said "to the Jew I am a Jew, to the greek a greek" the issue is the gospel, not do's and dont's its not earning salvation for yourself and selfishly doing 'good things' its; 'a good thing has been done, and I'm here to announce it' . Don't confuse our religion for a religion of law, we are a people of grace you are a people of law. Your grace doesn't compare to ours because you lack the uniqueness of a forgiving God who has completely, and perfectly saved us apart from ANY merit of our own.

To draw a parallel, there were many customs of Pre-Islamic Arabia (like going around the Kaaba naked, entering houses thru other than their doors, drinking wine, rites related to paganism, ursury, etc) that were abrogated by the the Prophet Muhammad. If he would have participated in any of these customs after they were abrogated by revelation, then he would lose his status as a Prophet. He never did that and noone would accept him as a true Prophet if he did (in fact he never did any of these things even before they were abrogated). So how can Christians accept the actions of the early disciples if the were just doing things that were abrogated by Jesus just 'as a matter of custom'. Explain that one to me.

And this is where you're wrong. If a Jewish Christian wants to practice those laws, he most certainly can, Christians of the Reformation taugh ta doctrine of Christian liberty and freedom of conscience all of which involve a personal sense of understanding sin, and how one is to obey. Read 1 Corinthians 10 and 11. The Jewish Christians in Corinth were refusing to eat meat sacrified to idols, yet gentiles had no problem with it and Paul didn't accuse the gentiles of being hyprocrites on the contrary encouraged them to be more patient with their 'weaker' brothers who thought it a sin to eat meat sacrificed to idols. This is, again a Christian freedom. Paul calls them things 'indifferent' and during the time it makes perfect sense, given that Jews were living in a time when Christian practice was weaved with Jewish religiosity, now in the 21st century, Jewish practice is foreign to Christianity because its Judaic influence is the Biblical basis, not ceremonial laws and traditions.

You can respond, but make sure to read what the holy Apostle and Prophet Paul teaches on the matter of things 'indifferent' and meat sacrificed to idols.

Edited by orthodox1234
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Hi Saintly,

Quote from Post 17

With the Epistle of James, I wasn't trying to say the Epistle of James was 100% historically correct or actually James' words,

Response: --- However, the Epistle of James was 100% correct in saying it was Isaac that was the intended sacrifice, because that is what the Scripture says.

That is also what Surah 37 says , that it was Abraham’s gentle son, which was isaac, who was submissive. --- And as the Surah goes on it gives more history

109. "Peace and salutation to Abraham!"

110. Thus indeed do We reward those who do right.

111. For he was one of our believing Servants.

112. And We gave him the good news of Isaac - a prophet, - one of the Righteous

113. We blessed him and Isaac: but of their progeny are (some) that do right, and (some) that obviously do wrong, to their own souls.

--- There is no mention of Ishmael as it said the blessing to the world was through Isaac and Jacob and the twelve sons of Jacob, the Children of Jacob (Israel).

Maybe I can give you a little more history to help you understand this ‘extreme’ test that God gave to Abraham.

Abraham was a bit deceptive when it came to his own safety

--- I had mentioned this before in Gen 12:

12. Therefore it will happen, when the Egyptians see you, that they will say, ‘This is his wife’; and they will kill me, but they will let you live.

13. Please say you are my sister, that it may be well with me for your sake, and that I may live because of you.”

And after that, God gave Abraham promises of great blessing and protection.

--- But again, some years later, in Genesis 20:

1. And Abraham journeyed from there to the South, and dwelt between Kadesh and Shur, and stayed in Gerar.

2. Now Abraham said of Sarah his wife, “She is my sister.” And Abimelech king of Gerar sent and took Sarah

3. But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, “Indeed you are a dead man because of the woman whom you have taken, for she is a man’s wife.”

4. But Abimelech had not come near her; and he said, “Lord, will You slay a righteous nation also?

5. Did he not say to me, ‘She is my sister’? And she, even she herself said, ‘He is my brother.’ In the integrity of my heart and innocence of my hands I have done this.”

6. And God said to him in a dream, “Yes, I know that you did this in the integrity of your heart. For I also withheld you from sinning against Me; therefore I did not let you touch her

7. Now therefore, restore the man’s wife; for he is a prophet, and he will pray for you and you shall live. But if you do not restore her, know that you shall surely die, you and all who are yours.”

8. So Abimelech rose early in the morning, called all his servants, and told all these things in their hearing; and the men were very much afraid.

9. And Abimelech called Abraham and said to him, “What have you done to us? How have I offended you, that you have brought on me and on my kingdom a great sin? You have done deeds to me that ought not to be done.”

10. Then Abimelech said to Abraham, “What did you have in view, that you have done this thing?”

11. And Abraham said, “Because I thought, surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will kill me on account of my wife.

12. But indeed she is truly my sister. She is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.

13. And it came to pass, when God caused me to wander from my father’s house, that I said to her, ‘This is your kindness that you should do for me: in every place, wherever we go, say of me, “He is my brother.”

--- Do you see what I mean? --- Abraham was not completely trustworthy, even though God had promised him protection, and great blessings.

--- (It was kind of understood that if you wanted to find favor with a king then you could give him your daughter, or in this case, your 'sister'.' --- But God stopped the immorality from taking place --- and it really showed that King Abimelech was more honorable than Abraham.)

Now, the ultimate test.

--- It was not that God ever intended Abraham to sacrifice his son, --- but wanted to be sure that Abraham would be faithful under pressure.

--- Very easily Abraham could have avoided the situation, if he had wanted a way out, --- and he could have again used Sarah.

Consider this: --- On the morning when they were ready to leave, Abraham could have sid to Sarah, “Say goodbye to your son Isaac, because the Lord has told me to sacrifice him on a mountain,” --- Had he said that Sarah would have grabbed her son around the neck and called the servants to Get Abraham away from him, and she would have stopped it all.

--- Then later, Abraham would have said, “Well, Lord, I wanted to do your will, but they stopped me,”

--- Now, notice how the Lord stopped him, and before they found the ram and sacrificed it, God said in 22:

12. And He (God) said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”

--- God said, “NOW I KNOW.”

And it was this act of obedience that James spoke of in 2:23, when he said, “Abraham, believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”

--- (This is where the truth of James' words are tied to the history in Genesis.)

Placid

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Its not 'dodgy' and its not 'ambigous' -- The very fact is that Christians, have always taught that we are under a new, and better covenant. One only need to read 1 Corinthians and the epistle to the Hebrews. We are no longer under the ceremonial and civil laws which pertained to an ethnic group but a people chosen from 'ever tribe, nation, and tongue' those of which do not belong to ethnic Israel therefore are to not follow the uniqueness demanded by the cermonial and civil laws. This is why Christians have taught that Jesus is Prophet, Priest and King of His people. Demonstrate why its ambigous and perhaps we can continue, but as Christians we do not believe that the Old Testament is binding in the same sense it was binding to the Jews who received that very Revelation, on the contrary what we have is an interpretation given by our Lord himself and His holy Apostles regarding how one is to understand the Laws of the Old Testament -- They point to Christ who fulfilled the role of all of those offices.

Under the laws of Moses, offering a sacrifice in the temple for a sin, etc. WAS MANDATORY. It wasn't optional.

So for the disciples and early Christians to do this WITHOUT EXPLICIT (and not interpretive) CLARIFICATION that

is is now optional would lead the followers to believe that IT IS STILL MANDATORY, because this was the current law

at the time. So for the disciples to do this without clarification that it is now optional, under the new covenant, would lead

the followers to believe that it is mandatory. So this practice of the disciples and early Christians is ambigous, dodgy, confusing, and misleading. The jews of that time took the rites of the temple VERY VERY seriously and it was not something to play with or be ambigous about. Without clarification, the followers would assume that it is still mandatory. I think I said this enough times now.

Then why did the disciples continue to practice the temple rites and did not clarify the issue for their followers ? You still haven't answered the question. I am not going to address the other issues you brought up until you answer the central question. If Jesus abrogated the laws of the Old Testement, why did the disciples and early Christians continue to practice them. If he abrogated some and not others, where is the clarification of which ones were abrogated. Please cite relevant verses for this.

The Rabbi asked a very simple question. Throwing Red Herrings right and left may fool some, but not me.

Also, framing the discussion, as most Christians do, that there is one, and only one interpretation of the actions of the early disciples is not intellectually honest. Taken together, the world population of Muslims and Jews combined outnumber Christians.

Although there is on other issues, on this issue there in no daylight between us (Muslims and Jews). The early Christians carried on the temple rites because Jesus(peace be upon him) did not abrogate the laws of Moses. This is something Paul made up (not based on the teaching of Jesus) in order to make Christianity more palatable to the pagan Romans. To completely dismiss this position, and not consider it, held by more than one billion people, is not wise.

Edited by Abu Hadi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
The Rabbi asked a very simple question. Throwing Red Herrings right and left may fool some, but not me.

And this is where the Rabbi and yourself fail to interpret correctly, there are DESCRIPTIVE and PRESCRIPTIVE practice in the NT. There are things that Luke described that are no longer in practice because they are not demanded in practice. Similarly there is no standing command to obey Mosaic instruction in the NT, on the contrary we are told that Christ has fulfilled the Law on our behalf, and we are told "You have heard it said...but now I say..." by our Lord himself. You see what Jews want is to make ethnic Jews out of everyone, and what Muslims want is to turn our culture into early Arab culture. What Christians insist is that God has given himself for them and on the basis of the authority given to him we are to announce forgiven sins, not forbidden foods, feast days, or halal, and haram.

Unfortunately, you still haven't dealt with the core issue, and it seems that you are unwilling to deal with it.

So I will state it one more time.

If , after the (supposed) crucifixion and (supposed) death of Jesus(peace be upon him), mankind was under a new covenant, then why were the disciples and followers of Jesus still operating under the (supposed) Old Covenant which included The Mosaic Laws. If the Mosaic laws were abbrogated, then why were they still adhering to them and adopting this as their modus operendi.

Your distinction between Jews and Gentiles is meaningless in the context of the covenant you are presenting, because according to Christian Theology, the new covenant covered mankind equally, Jews and Gentiles. So why are you making this distinction ?

Also, you are destroying your own argument by saying that there are descriptive and prescriptive practices in the new testement.

If there are prescriptive practices, what are they based on? The laws of Moses ? If they aren't then what are they based on. If they are, then that means that part of the Old Covenant still stands and then you have to distinguish between which are still in force and which are abrogated.

If what you said above is true, then that means all the laws of Moses are abrogated and there is only forgiveness of sins and no halal and haram, then this opens up pandora's box. Does that mean that the commandment against commiting adultry is abrogated and we can commit adultry as much as we like with no consequences because all there is is forgiveness of sins and no halal and haram. Does this mean that the commandment forbidding murder is abrogated and I can kill as much as I like with no consequences because all their is is forgiveness of sins and no halal and haram. Does this mean that the commandment forbidding theft is abrogated and I can steal as much as I like because there is only forgiveness of sins and no halal and haram.

I won't belabor this point as I think it is clear that if even a small percentage of the people followed what you said that there is no halal and haram and only forgiveness of sins then the world as we know it wouldn't exist and the human race would have done away with itself long ago. Thank God that most Christians actually observe the rules of halal and haram in their practical life, although they don't call it by that name.

If they are not all abrogate, which ones are and which aren't, by the words of Jesus(peace be upon him). This is the central question which I would like an answer to.

Also, sorry, I didn't realize I was editing your post, I thought I was editing mine. Your post above got damaged. I don't want to misrepresent the whole post, so I deleted it. You can repost below mine. It was an accident, I apologize.

Edited by Abu Hadi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Hi,

First, I would like to ask a question. When Jesus died on the cross and there was a great earthquake, and the veil of the Temple was torn down so that the Holy of Holies was open to all, (meaning that, now people could come directly to God without going through a priest), --- were there any animal or blood sacrifices after that?

While I don’t want to interrupt your discussion, I would like to comment on this from Abu.

Quote from Post 27:

If what you said above is true, then that means all the laws of Moses are abrogated and there is only forgiveness of sins and no halal and haram, then this opens up pandora's box. Does that mean that the commandment against commiting adultry is abrogated and we can commit adultry as much as we like with no consequences because all there is is forgiveness of sins and no halal and haram. Does this mean that the commandment forbidding murder is abrogated and I can kill as much as I like with no consequences because all their is is forgiveness of sins and no halal and haram. Does this mean that the commandment forbidding theft is abrogated and I can steal as much as I like because there is only forgiveness of sins and no halal and haram.

I won't belabor this point as I think it is clear that if even a small percentage of the people followed what you said that there is no halal and haram and only forgiveness of sins then the world as we know it wouldn't exist and the human race would have done away with itself long ago. Thank God that most Christians actually observe the rules of halal and haram in their practical life, although they don't call it by that name.

If they are not all abrogate, which ones are and which aren't, by the words of Jesus(peace be upon him). This is the central question which I would like an answer to.

Response: --- In Matthew 5, verses 1-16 speak of the ‘Blessed’ Christian temperament which sets the tone for the Sermon on the Mount, ch 5, 6, and 7’

Then Jesus said,

17. “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.”

--- The sense of “abrogation” does not enter into the New Covenant teaching.

You said, --- ‘If all is forgiven, one can commit adultery as much as they like,”

But Jesus said,

27. “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’

28. But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

29. If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.

--- (Since God looks at the heart, He knows what we really are, and what we believe, so if the heart is surrendered to God’s will, then there is a desire in the believer to be “pure in heart,” verse 8.)

Again you said, If all is forgiven, then “I can kill as much as I like with no consequences.”

But Jesus said,

21. “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’

22. But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire. 23. Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you,

24. leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.

--- (To call someone a ‘fool’ was to imply ‘spiritual ignorance,’ or condemn them.)

--- (These verses alone should tell you why Christians are taught to be peace loving and non-violent, and therefore, often easily dominated by others.)

--- In the three chapters, Jesus gives the new moral code for the Commandments and shows how they are fulfilled,

--- I will give one more:

43. “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’

44. But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 45. that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.

--- (It doesn’t say in the Commandments, “hate your enemy,” --- but this is what the Pharisees taught, and it set up a hateful society because if someone did you wrong, you didn’t have to forgive them, you could ‘hate’ them as an enemy instead. --- But Jesus said, “Love your enemies, and your adversaries.”

Let’s apply this attitude of Love to the Ten Commandments of Exodus 20, to see how they are ‘fulfilled’ in Love,

--- The first 4 deal with our relationship to God.

If you Love God, --- you will worship none but Him, --- you will not have other ‘gods’ or interests, that take precedence over Him, --- you will not take His name in vain, or use it loosely --- and you will honor the Lord’s Day, set aside for rest and worship.

--- The 5th commandment says, “Honor your father and Mother.”

If you Love your father and mother, --- you will honor and respect them.

---6-10, deal with your relationship with others, which are included in ‘Loving your neighbors as you Love yourself.”

If you Love them --- you will not murder them --- you would not commit adultery with them nor against them --- you would not steal from them --- you would not lie about them, --- and you would not be envious or jealous of what they have,

--- So, the New Commandment to Love --- was the ‘fulfilling’ of the written Law, was it not?

Placid

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Your answer does not address the Rabbi's point. His point was that if Jesus was the sacrifice to end all sacrifices and his sacrifice abrogated the laws of Moses, then why did the Early Christians, including the disciples of Jesus continue to give sacrifices and follow the laws of Moses. Saying the did it 'as a matter of custom' is a dodgy and ambigous statement. If they did it just to 'go with the flow' ignoring the precedent which Jesus set, then they were hypocrites and misguiding people who would surely look to them as leaders of the way of Jesus after him and would, at the very least, be confused. If they were doing it because it was required, it means that Jesus did not abrogate the laws of Moses (as we Muslims and also Jews believe).

So which do you want to admit, that they early Christians and disciples after Jesus were hypocrites who were misguiding and confusing the people OR that Jesus did not abrogate the laws of Moses. These are the only logical conclusions one can come to based on the scripture cited.

To draw a parallel, there were many customs of Pre-Islamic Arabia (like going around the Kaaba naked, entering houses thru other than their doors, drinking wine, rites related to paganism, ursury, etc) that were abrogated by the the Prophet Muhammad. If he would have participated in any of these customs after they were abrogated by revelation, then he would lose his status as a Prophet. He never did that and noone would accept him as a true Prophet if he did (in fact he never did any of these things even before they were abrogated). So how can Christians accept the actions of the early disciples if the were just doing things that were abrogated by Jesus just 'as a matter of custom'. Explain that one to me.

It's a good question, and I'll to unpack my earlier answer a bit.

The attitude of the early church, after much heated debate, was that the Mosaic Law was no longer binding on people, in particular Gentiles. However that didn't mean it was wrong to practise it. There were an awful lot of strong social, political, cultural and above all practical reasons why a first century Jew who had adopted Christianity might continue to observe the Torah.

Remember that at the beginning the Early Church saw itself as being a form of modified Judaism- in contrast to how things are today.

Bearing that in mind, why did Paul get involved with Temple sacrifice? The first thing to point out is that there wasn't any reason not to. The sacrifice itself was harmless in religious terms, albeit unnecessary. Importantly, it's widely thought Paul continued to keep the Mosaic Law himself, while fighting for the rights of others to not have to.

What was happening, however, was that his opponents were trying to make him out to be opposing the Mosaic Law. This was creating a lot of opposition from Judaism. Paul wanted to make the point that he wasn't against the Law, and the best way to do that was to support a very Jewish ritual.

Which isn't hypocrisy at all, because unlike with your parallel, there was nothing wrong with keeping the Law. It just wasn't necessary to keep it any more.

Feel free to ask about anything that's still unclear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

^ ^ ^

Paul didn't oppose Mosaic Law, he basically just says the benefit is more for the sake of tradition, heritage, or just to make yourself feel good.

However, some Christians do accept the writings attributed to Paul and company while still keeping finer points of Mosaic Law, something rare among most Gentile Christians nowadays. However, I am not sure what logic they use in interpreting the particular New Testament epistles. Either they practice it just for tradition's sake or perhaps feel it is more beneficial in general than not following it.

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Hi Abu,

I would just like to add a little footnote, where one verse could be read a few times and perhaps not noticed.

In this portion of Surah 5, it mentions Jews who came to Muhammad for judgment, but not with sincerety, --- So God said:

43. But why do they come to thee for decision, when they have (their own) law before them? - therein is the (plain) command of God; yet even after that, they would turn away. For they are not (really) People of Faith.

44. It was We who revealed the law (to Moses): therein was guidance and light. By its standard have been judged the Jews, by the prophets who bowed (as in Islam) to God's will, by the rabbis and the doctors of law: for to them was entrusted the protection of God's book, and they were witnesses thereto: therefore fear not men, but fear me, and sell not my signs for a miserable price. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what God hath revealed, they are (no better than) Unbelievers.

45. We ordained therein for them: "Life for life, eye for eye, nose or nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal." But if any one remits the retaliation by way of charity, it is an act of atonement for himself. And if any fail to judge by (the light of) what God hath revealed, they are (No better than) wrong-doers.

--- Here is what I want you to notice, --- The law, "an eye for an eye and a totth for a tooth," seemed to still be in effect for the Jews, --- but,

Yusuf Ali: IF ANYONE REMITS THE RETALIATION, BY WAY OF CHARITY, IT IS AN ACT OF ATONEMENT FOR HIMSELF.

Pickthall: But he who foregoes it, it shall be an expiation for him;

Shakir: But whoso forgoeth it (in the way of charity) it shall be expiation for him.

Sher Ali: And whoso waives the right thereto, it shall be an expiation for his own sins;

Khalifa: If one forfeits what is due to him as a charity, it will atone for his sins.

Arberry: but whosoever forgoes it as a freewill offering, that shall be for him an expiation.

The word "charity" means "love," --- but a certain kind of love. --- It is a 'giving, without expecting anything in return.' --- That is still what charity means today, is it not?

--- And as expressed here, it is a giving of love, or forgiveness, instead of retaliation, or demanding payment for a wrong done.

--- This is the attitude of Love that Jesus taught in the Gospel. --- to repay with love and forgiveness.

--- This is kind of like 'turning the other cheek.'

--- And also like "the Golden Rule," Matthew 7:12, --- "Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.""

So in this injection of 'Charity" in the verse, it was applying the Christian response to a wrong done to someone. --- I'm sorry that some Christians are not always so congenial, --- but that is the stringent "code of ethics" that Jesus taught, which is a standard that surpasses a written law, as God said, "I will put My laws in their minds and write them on their hearts," Heb 8:10.

And the verses that follow confirm this:

46. And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear God.

47. Let the people of the Gospel judge by what God hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what God hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.

--- (This reveals that Christians are to live by, and be judged by, the Gospel.)

48 is my favourite verse, as it addresses all three religions:

To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what God hath revealed, --- and follow not their vain desires (referring to the Jews in verses 41-43), diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. --- To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If God had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to God; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute;

Placid

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Hi Saintly,

Quote from Post 30:

However, I am not sure what logic they use in interpreting the particular New Testament epistles. Either they practice it just for tradition's sake or perhaps feel it is more beneficial in general than not following it.

Respnse: --- The Scripture speaks plainly in Acts 21 about the reason Paul went with the four men to the Temple to be purified with them.

Paul and Luke had been warned about the dangers there were in going to Jerusalem, but God used the tumult it caused to send Paul on his way to Rome.

But here is the setting in Acts 21:

17. And when we had come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly.

--- (Notice: --- The elders and Apostles who were still in the Jerusalem Church received them ' gladly.' --- There was no disharmony.)

18. On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present.

--- (Notice: --- Luke refers to himself in saying 'us' --- and the same James and elders that were present in the Meeting in Acts 15, were there.)

19. When he had greeted them, he told in detail those things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.

--- (Paul again gave testimony before them of their ministry among the Gentiles.)

20. And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord.--- And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law;

--- (Notice: --- Those in the Meeting 'glorified the Lord.' --- And in return, they mentioned their success in jerusalem. --- Through the years there had been, --- "myriads of Jews who have believed." --- so they believed in 'salvation through faith,' --- but they would still circumcise their children, go to the Temple for prayer, perhaps enjoy much of the traditional worship, --- but all sacrifices had ceased years before.

--- However, these Jewish Christians would have great respect for the Law of Moses, --- and they had heard stories about Paul.)

21. But they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs.

22. What then? The assembly must certainly meet, for they will hear that you have come.

--- (This posed a problem, so the council had a plan to show that Paul still respected the Law of Moses.)

23. Therefore do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow.

24. Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law.

--- (That was a good plan, was it not? --- The best defence is a good offence, --- so, they would have Paul sponsor four men in taking their vows, and Notice: --- Paul was obedient to these elders in Jerusalem.)

25. But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.”

--- (Notice: --- That this was the instructions they had given Paul and Barnabas some 14 years earlier, in the meeting in Acts 15:28-29:

"FOR IT SEEMED GOOD TO THE HOLY SPIRIT AND TO US, TO LAY UPON YOU NO GREATER BURDEN THAN THESE NECESSARY THINGS:

THAT YOU ABSTAIN FROM THOSE THINGS OFFERED TO IDOLS, FROM BLOOD, FROM THINGS STRANGLED, AND FROM SEXUAL IMMORALITY. IF YOU KEEP YOURSELVES FROM THESE, YOU WILL DO WELL.

--- You see, there was no inconsistency, no hypocricy, --- but a respect for the difference between the teaching of the Jews and Gentiles.

--- Notice again: --- Paul could have said, "But now that I'm a Christian, I don't keep these Jewish customs," --- but he was still a Jew, and was obedient to their plan.)

26. Then Paul took the men, and the next day, having been purified with them, entered the temple to announce the expiration of the days of purification, at which time an offering should be made for each one of them.

27. Now when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd and laid hands on him,

28. crying out, “Men of Israel, help! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against the people, the law, and this place; and furthermore he also brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place.”

--- (The regular Jews in the Temple may have recognized Paul and observed that he was keeping the customs of the Jews, --- but some Jews from Asia stirred up the people and had him arrested.

Placid

Edited by placid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Hi ILove,

This goes back a little but I wanted to respond to your 2 questions.

From Post 21.

placid, on 25 June 2011 - 06:47 AM, said:

The contradiction is between the Quran and whatever teaching led Muslims to believe that the Quran referred to Ishmael in saying, --- "A gentle son" who was submissive.

(You said) --- Hi Placid

Which verse are you quoting here ? And which son, in your view, was referred to in that verse as 'a gentle son' and why ?

Please use the Quran only. Quoting from the Bible to answer that question would be going around in circles.

Response: --- Yusuf Ali: 37:

100. "O my Lord! Grant me a righteous (son)!"

101. So We gave him the good news of a boy ready to suffer and forbear.

102. Then, when (the son) reached (the age of) (serious) work with him, he said: "O my son! I see in vision that I offer thee in sacrifice: Now see what is thy view!" (The son) said: "O my father! Do as thou art commanded: thou will find me, if God so wills one practising Patience and Constancy!"

103. So when they had both submitted their wills (to God), and he had laid him prostrate on his forehead (for sacrifice),

104. We called out to him "O Abraham!

105. "Thou hast already fulfilled the vision!" - thus indeed do We reward those who do right.

112. And We gave him the good news of Isaac - a prophet, - one of the Righteous.

113. We blessed him and Isaac: but of their progeny are (some) that do right, and (some) that obviously do wrong, to their own souls.

Pickthall says,

101. So We gave him tidings of a gentle son.

102. And when (his son) was old enough to walk with him, (Abraham) said: O my dear son, I have seen in a dream that I must sacrifice thee. So look, what thinkest thou? He said: O my father! Do that which thou art commanded. Allah willing, thou shalt find me of the steadfast.

While it says that the revelations of God were given to all, including Ishmael, the Quran doesn’t picture him as a gentle or submissive person, or the one that received the blessing.

However, in 2:124 it says:

And (remember) when his Lord tried Abraham with (His) commands, and he fulfilled them, He said: Lo! I have appointed thee a leader for mankind.

(Abraham) said: And of my offspring (will there be leaders)? He said: My covenant includeth not wrong-doers.

It is obvious that Ishmael was the victim of unfortunate circumstances, but God made him a great nation, as He promised, --- but not the chosen nation.

I am not being critical in asking this, but --- is there a testimony in the Quran of what Ishmael believed, like there is of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?

Second question

placid, on 25 June 2011 - 06:47 AM, said:

Whoever devised this, centered his teaching on the word "only" and assumed that the symbol of sacrifice had to have happened with Ishmael while he was the "only" son.

(You said:) --- Please pardon my ignorance but where does the Quran refer to an 'only son' ?

Response: --- To recap this, we have to go back to Post 8, where Saintly quoted James, who said, “--- Abraham, when he offered his own son Isaac.”

Farther down in the post Saintly said, “Abraham was willing to kill his son Ishmael.”

Post 10, I said, “The Scripture says it was Isaac.”

Post 11, Marymmm said, “Only son. --- which would be Ishmael

Post 12, I said, “Where does it say ‘only son’?

--- 2 responses said Gen 22:2 (This takes us back to the Torah)

Post 15, I said, “It says ‘only son’ Isaac.”

Post 16, (you said) --- “The contradiction is between the Quran and the Bible.”

Post 18, I said, the contradiction was between the Quran and the hadith or commentary that changed Isaac to Ishmael, because the indications are in both Quran and Bible that Isaac was the ‘gentle son,’ are they not?

--- The cross reference from James 2:21 where it says, “his own son Isaac,” is to Gen 22:2, which says , “only son, Isaac.”

When Saintly quoted from James in the NT, --- then the response to "only" took it back to Genesis, it remained only to verify 'gentle son' from the Quran.

As I said before, the date in the OT of the test of Abraham’s faith would be when Isaac was about 16, and Ishmael would be about 30.

--- However, if you choose to interpret it differently than what the Scriptures say, then that is up to you.

Placid

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Hi Qa'im,

Quote from Post 22

What we do see in the narrative is, God grants Abraham a son (unnamed), and then the sacrifice story is given. Then, after the story is over, a new context begins in 37:112-113 ("and" We gave him tidings with the birth of Isaac) and ends once Allah speaks about Musa and Harun . I agree that this evidence is not absolutely conclusive, but 37:100-113 identifies a birth, a sacrifice story, then Isaac's birth. Moreover, in 11:71, we see that Allah has already identified to Abraham's wife (Sara) that Isaac would have a son and named him (Jacob) before Isaac was born, so Abraham would have already known that Isaac would live long enough to see his offspring, because the promise of Allah is true. To most Muslims this is enough to conclude that the sacrifice story is not referring to Is`haq .

The only authority that says it was Isaac is the Torah/Pentateuch, a book which our Prophet told us to neither believe nor disbelieve. The Qur'an doesn't hold that these books have never been changed, but rather, there is enough in the Jewish and Christian scriptures to point towards Islam and Muhammed .

Response: --- Yes, I see, when you separate the two sets of verses, it could be seen as Isaac being born later.

However, in the ten translations I check, only two mention ‘the birth of Isaac,’ but the others, like Yusuf Ali say ‘the good news of Isaac.’

112. And We gave him the good news of Isaac - a prophet, - one of the Righteous.

113. We blessed him and Isaac: but of their progeny are (some) that do right, and (some) that obviously do wrong, to their own souls.

In verse 100 Yusuf Ali: "O my Lord! Grant me a righteous (son)!"

--- So, in this sense, God had granted a righteous son, and now, after the test, which showed his willingness to be sacrificed (though, as you said, there was a future predicted for Isaac), he became --- ‘a prophet, - one of the Righteous.’

113. And God blessed Abraham and Isaac as they continued together

--- At this point I want to mention two verses from the Quran of a comparable situation. The wife of Zechariah, the mother of John the Baptist, was barren and elderly, and Surah 21 records this:

89. And Zechariah, when he cried unto his Lord! My Lord! Leave me not childless, though Thou art the best of inheritors.

90. Then We heard his prayer, and bestowed upon him John, and adjusted his wife (to bear a child) for him. Lo! They used to vie one with the other in good deeds, and they cried unto Us in longing and in fear, and were submissive unto Us.

--- Though it isn’t mentioned in Scripture, --- this had been noted, --- that Sarah was barren and elderly, so, she also would have to be adjusted (to bear a child).

--- So Isaac was the ‘child of promise.’ From 25 years earlier, and was a special child, for a special purpose, --- as was John the Baptist.

There was another special birth in 1 Samuel 1 where Hannah was barren “because God had closed her womb,” --- but after much prayer, and a promise to give the child to the Lord for His service, she gave birth to Samuel, who was the great Prophet and High priest at that time in history. --- (In the case of special births, God can determine what He wills to do.)

I respect your reasoning and always read your posts with interest, and I remember something you said some time ago: --- That I shouldn’t say, “Muhammad said,” --- but rather say, “The Quran said.”

Quote: The only authority that says it was Isaac is the Torah/Pentateuch, a book which our Prophet told us to neither believe nor disbelieve. The Qur'an doesn't hold that these books have never been changed,

In this statement you seem to say that Muhammad said, “Neither believe nor disbelieve,” --- but I don’t find that in the Quran.

As I’ve been told again to “Read the Quran to know what Muslims believe,” --- I read the positive verses that were give is Surahs 2 and 3, the early teaching that was given when the Muslim s were growing in number in Al Madinah.

And concerning the former Scriptures, Surah 3:

3. It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus)

4. Before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong). Then those who reject Faith in the Signs of God will suffer the severest penalty, and God is Exalted in Might, Lord of Retribution.

7. He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book, --- (to continue with the positive), --- but no one knows its hidden meanings except God. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding.

--- No one knows its hidden meanings except God (and those to whom He reveals them). --- So it is God that gives understanding of the things we question. --- And He doesn’t reveal it all at once, but as we seek Him, He guides us,

This has to be my conviction, that, since God endorsed the former Scriptures, then we are to believe them all, as they have been preserved.

Placid

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

The attitude of the early church, after much heated debate, was that the Mosaic Law was no longer binding on people, in particular Gentiles. However that didn't mean it was wrong to practise it. There were an awful lot of strong social, political, cultural and above all practical reasons why a first century Jew who had adopted Christianity might continue to observe the Torah.

Remember that at the beginning the Early Church saw itself as being a form of modified Judaism- in contrast to how things are today.

Wait, isn't Mosaic Law only binding Jews & non-Jews are bounded by Noachide Law?

So, on the observance of the law, it should have been clear at the time.

Unless the issue was on whether the non-Jews could be invited to be part of this new religion since Jewish is an exclusive religion which conversion is not encouraged by the Rabbi. Especially when these converts would have continued to be bounded by Noachide Law after the conversion, unlike conversion to Judaism that made the converts to be considered as Jews & bounded by Mosaic Law.

Nevertheless, whatever debate ever happened between Peter & Paul recorded in Act, it was more on the issues of Gentiles, right? Perhaps I missed this, but can you point out where Peter ever supported the view that Mosaic Law (even Noachide Law) was no longer binding on people, including Jews?

Edited by rotten_coconut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...