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

On the subject of Mosaic Law, it always seemed interesting to me that in the Gospels Jesus (as) puts a lot of emphasis on upholding the law to the letter, despite the fact that alegedly it was to become abrogated within a matter of months. When looking at the language ("until heaven and earth disappear", "not the smallest letter") is Matthew 5:17-20, you would hardly get the impression that the entire Law was meant to be dispensed with so quickly. You have to wonder why something that would soon become so unimportant was spoken of in these terms.

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:17-20, NIV)

Edited by Haider Husayn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Hi Haider,

Quote: On the subject of Mosaic Law, it always seemed interesting to me that in the Gospels Jesus puts a lot of emphasis on upholding the law to the letter, despite the fact that alegedly it was to become abrogated within a matter of months. When looking at the language ("until heaven and earth disappear", "not the smallest letter") is Matthew 5:17-20, you would hardly get the impression that the entire Law was meant to be dispensed with so quickly. You have to wonder why something that would soon become so unimportant was spoken of in these terms.

Response: --- The Mosaic Law was basically the Ten Commandments, --- and all others came from them, did they not?

If you read Matthew 5:1-12, which are called the Beattitudes (The word 'beattitude' comes from the word, 'beatify,' which means, 'to make happy,' --- but many like to think of them as the "Be- Attitudes," --- meaning, 'These are what we should 'Be').

The Beatitudes

1 And seeing the multitudes, He went up on a mountain, and when He was seated His disciples came to Him.

2 Then He opened His mouth and taught them, saying:

3 “ Blessed are the poor in spirit,

For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

4 Blessed are those who mourn,

For they shall be comforted.

5 Blessed are the meek,

For they shall inherit the earth.

6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,

For they shall be filled.

7 Blessed are the merciful,

For they shall obtain mercy.

8 Blessed are the pure in heart,

For they shall see God.

9 Blessed are the peacemakers,

For they shall be called sons of God.

10 Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake,

For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

11 “Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake.

12 Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

--- After Jesus gives the first 12 verses as a new lifestyle, He commends those who will follow this way by saying, in 13, "You are the salt of the earth." And in 14, "You are the light of the World."

And ending with

16, "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.

Then in 17, He said, “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill

--- Jesus said in verse 20. "For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven." --- (Which meant they were off the track.)

So, He centers in on the Ten Commandments and systematically works through them, by saying, --- "The Law says," --- "But I say." --- This doesn't do away with the Law of Moses, but fulfills it with a new attitude or 'code of ethics.'

So the 'New Covenant’ began with the Beatitudes, which shows the fulfilling of the Law, before you even get to verse 17.

--- In Matthew 5, 6, and 7, Jesus worked through the Ten Commandments, and reinstated the Law of Love from Deut 6:

4. “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!

5. You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength.

(And from another Scripture) “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

--- And He summed up the "Fulfilling of the Law" by saying in 7:

12. Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets

What laws are you thinking of that have been 'abrogated'?.

Placid

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Hi Haider,

I would really like to grab your attention for a few minutes on this Scripture that you centered in on.

Something to consider concerning Jesus is that when He began to teach and heal the sick, His fame spread quickly, as is recorded in Matthew 4:

23. And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the Gospel of the kingdom, and healing all kinds of sickness and all kinds of disease among the people.

24. Then His fame went throughout all Syria; and they brought to Him all sick people who were afflicted with various diseases and torments, and those who were demon-possessed, epileptics, and paralytics; and He healed them.

25. Great multitudes followed Him—from Galilee, and from Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea, and beyond the Jordan.

---So it was the right time to establish the teaching of the New Covenant that God was revealing through Him, the Gospel Message for the multitudes, --- and the right time to have it recorded.

So, Matthew 5 begins:

1. And seeing the multitudes, He went up on a mountain, and when He was seated His disciples came to Him.

2. Then He opened His mouth and taught them, saying:

--- So, the ‘Sermon on the Mount ,’ Matthew 5, 6, and 7, --- from 5:3 to 7:27 is what Jesus taught them, --- so it was all the “Sayings of Jesus” ---

Notice that there was no dialogue or discussion in the Sermon, but rather, every statement was what Jesus said.

Notice that the ten statements from 5:3-12, are promises to those who had submitted, or would submit their way to God.

They are “Blessings” which are the result of the new Faith in God, not by the ‘letter of the law,’ but by the ‘attitude’ of Love.

If you love God, you will be willingly obedient, not as a slave, but as a servant.

--- Notice also that in dealing with the various laws, He said, “You have heard that it has been said, --- But I say, ---.“ And He ends 5 with the renewed ‘Law of Love.’

In 6, He speaks on prayer and fasting, and the folly of obtaining wealth, and in v 25, He says, “Therefore, I say to you, ‘Do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing?”

Then He makes comparison to the ‘birds of the air’ and the ‘lilies of the field,’ --- and He sums it up, saying:

31. “Therefore do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’

32. For after all these things the Gentiles seek. For your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things.

33. But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.

--- In 7. He speaks on judging and comparing, --- and He gives ‘The Golden Rule’

In v 12, “Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.”

He continues with, ‘the two ways of life, and ‘false and true teaching.’

He finalizes His “Sayings” with these verses:

24. “Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock:

25. And the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.

26.“But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand:

27. And the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.”

--- The chapter ends with, “When Jesus ended THESE SAYINGS”

28. And so it was, when Jesus had ended these sayings, that the people were astonished at His teaching,

29. For He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

So, to add evidence to Matthew’s first writing in Aramaic of, “The Sayings of Jesus,” I believe this would be it, --- “The Sermon on the Mount.”

--- And an interesting quote from Ibrahim Rasheed’s ‘history of the Church’:

Evidence suggests that the group known historically as the Nazarines representedthe Jewish-Christianity taught by the apostles. The term "Nazarene" is first mentioned in Acts 24:5 where it is used to refer to true Christians. Later Jewish writings also referred to Christians as Nazarenes. Two catholic writers, Epiphanius and Jerome, stated that the Nazarenes of their day dwelt in Berea, Pella, and in other cities in the hill country of Judea and Syria. Julius Africanus corroborates that Jewish Christian leaders included offspring from Jesus' family. These Christians had a complete gospel of Matthew in Aramaic, as well as commentaries on the Old Testament, which Jerome himself used. They followed the law of Moses along with the teachings of Christ.

Placid

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

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?

Clear to who and at which time?

At the beginning, it wasn't at all clear to a significant part of the early church that the Mosaic Law, so integral to C1 Jewish life, should be abandoned. These continued to resist the move away from it for a religion that has Judaism at its core, and would have wanted Gentile “converts” to fall in line with the Law as had always been the case with anyone wanting to join the people of God. The resulting struggle is played out in the NT, with the crucial decisions taken in Acts 15 . These are clearly about Peter et al accepting the de-application of the Law.

Now as the church became detached from its Jewish roots, the optional nature of full Mosaic Law obedience became less controversial. But at the point in time the rabbi is talking, the debate is alive, and Paul is coming across as someone wanting to attack the Mosaic Law; a charge he refutes by deed.

Judaism may not be about pushing as hard on conversion as some other religions, but it certainly went on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

On the subject of Mosaic Law, it always seemed interesting to me that in the Gospels Jesus (as) puts a lot of emphasis on upholding the law to the letter, despite the fact that alegedly it was to become abrogated within a matter of months. When looking at the language ("until heaven and earth disappear", "not the smallest letter") is Matthew 5:17-20, you would hardly get the impression that the entire Law was meant to be dispensed with so quickly. You have to wonder why something that would soon become so unimportant was spoken of in these terms.

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:17-20, NIV)

I wonder if I might offer a slightly different spin to this question.

The key phrase is “I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them.” Law in C1 Israel was a function and feature of covenant. Now a contract can either be completed, or annulled or abolished after being irrevocably broken. Jesus is saying that he is completing the covenant between God and Man, rather than seeing it abandoned.

He then proceeds to outline the conditions for the new covenant, which must be taught and obeyed.

The word for “fulfil” is plerosai, from pleres “to make full, to complete”. The sense is of what Jesus is saying is that all that had gone before (the Law and prophets) were part of a deal which was about to be honoured 'to the letter'. It is Jesus interpretation of the vocation and destiny of Israel that is in ultimate continuity with the Torah and prophets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
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 practicing 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.

Hi Placid

Any fool who reads those verses - (100 to 113) will see that the Quran is talking about two distinct sons – not just one.

In verse 100, Abraham prays for a son and in 101, God grants him one. The sacrifice story of this unnamed son is mentioned in verses 102 to 107.

Then in verse 112, the Quran talks about another good son, Ishaq (or Isaac), also a prophet.

So the son mentioned in verse 101 cannot be the same as the son in verse 112. Verse 112 is talking about the birth of a son after the sacrifice story. Whether the son mentioned in 101 and 102 is Ismael (Ishmael) or someone else, is beside the point. But it simply cannot be Isaac because Isaac was born after the incident of the intended sacrifice.

In short, verses 100 through to 106 talk about an unnamed son. Then verses 107 to 112 are about Abraham himself. Finally verses 112 and 113 talk about a son named Isaac.

In [19:54], the Quran declares Ishmael a prophet.

And finally in [38:48] Ismail is described as among the excellent.

You can believe whatever you wish. No one will stop you. But please don't misconstrue it to be a teaching of the Quran.

That is indeed what you are saying when you say that the contradiction is not between the Quran and the Bible but between the Quran and hadith. And you don't even know which hadith you are talking about.

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.

What unfortunate circumstances ?

The concept of ‘the chosen nation’, as understood in the Judeo-Christian tradition, does not exist in Islam. You can keep deceiving yourself until the cows come home but the Quran completely rejects the chosen nation. Clearly, it would be discrimination on the part of God to deem any particular group, on the basis of their birth, as His chosen people.

[5:18] Both the Jews and the Christians say: "We are sons of God, and his beloved."

Say: "Why then does He punish you for your sins? Nay, you are but men, - of the men he has created: He forgives whom He pleases, and He punishes whom He pleases: and to God belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between: and unto Him is the final goal (of all)"

If the Jews or Christians were the chosen nation, the Quran would not issue that strong reprimand.

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

Please don’t mix up two scriptures. Please use either the Bible or the Quran but not both if you wish to prove what the respective book says.

The contradiction was between the Quran and the hadith or commentary that changed Isaac to Ishmael

You are clearly speculating and making unfounded accusations. Please quote the hadith in question.

The Quran is very clear on the subject. It certainly was not Isaac.

Your belief may be acceptable according to the Bible but represents a glaring contradiction between the Quran and the Bible – one of many.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Hi Ilove,

Quote from Post 33:

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: --- This is the first of two questions you asked, which was the ‘gentle son’?

So, from the Quran I gave you the verses that refer to a gentle son and a righteous son, and though the Verses may appear like two sons, only one could be referred to as a gentle son.

(That was from the Quran, which doesn’t name the son, and I would have spared you from this, but this is the evidence that Ishmael was not of a ‘gentle‘ nature.)

In Genesis 16, it says this of Ishmael:

8. She (Hagar) said, “I am fleeing from the presence of my mistress Sarai.”

9 The Angel of the LORD said to her, “Return to your mistress, and submit yourself under her hand.”

10 Then the Angel of the LORD said to her, “I will multiply your descendants exceedingly, so that they shall not be counted for multitude.”

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.”

(Ishmael married an Egyptian woman so would be 3 parts Egyptian, so his brethren were not the Jews, as his descendants settled in a different area.

As Boston mentioned, the Ishmaelites were merchants when they bought Joseph from his brothers, who were farmers, so they were doing well in business.)

Quote from Post 33:

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: --- The word “only” is in Gen 22:2, some years after Hagar and Ishmael had left, and the commentator preferred the word “only,” to the name Isaac.

Here it is in context from Gen 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.”

3 So Abraham rose early in the morning and saddled his donkey, and took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son; and he split the wood for the burnt offering, and arose and went to the place of which God had told him.

4 Then on the third day Abraham lifted his eyes and saw the place afar off.

5 And Abraham said to his young men, “Stay here with the donkey; the lad and I will go yonder and worship, and we will come back to you.”

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.”

13 Then Abraham lifted his eyes and looked, and there behind him was a ram caught in a thicket by its horns. So Abraham went and took the ram, and offered it up for a burnt offering instead of his son.

14 And Abraham called the name of the place, The-LORD-Will-Provide; as it is said to this day, “In the Mount of the LORD it shall be provided.”

15 Then the Angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time out of heaven,

16 and said: “By Myself I have sworn, says the LORD, because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son—

17 blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies.

18 In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.”

19 So Abraham returned to his young men, and they rose and went together to Beersheba; and Abraham dwelt at Beersheba.

--- Notice that in v 16 it refers again to Isaac as ‘your only son.”

Placid

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

Not true !

The reason why Muslims believe that Ishmael was the son referred to in the intended sacrifice, is the Quran itself. It has nothing to do with ‘a gentle son’ or ‘the gentle son’.

Sura 37 is clearly talking about two sons, not one. As I said before, it is much too obvious.

This is the first of two questions you asked, which was the ‘gentle son’?

And please note that the Quran is not talking about ‘the’ gentle son but ‘a’ gentle son. Please read it again. The Bible thinks of Isaac and Ishmael on different lines. According to the Bible, Isaac was good but Ishmael was not. However, according to the Quran, they were both excellent men and therefore both gentle. An excellent person is implicitly also gentle.

[37:101]

Pickthall :- So We gave him tidings of a gentle son.

Arberry :- Then We gave him the good tidings of a prudent boy.

Palmer :- And we gave him glad tidings of a clement boy.

Rodwell :- We announced to him a youth of meekness.

Sale :- Wherefore we acquainted him [that he should have a son, who should be] a meek youth.

If the Quran had spoken of 'the' gentle son, it could be taken to mean that only one son was gentle and the other was not but that is clearly not the case. There is a big difference between 'a gentle son' and 'the gentle son'

Unlike the Bible which speaks disparagingly of Ishmael, in the Quran, both are excellent people and therefore gentle men.

As I said before, the Quran declares Ishmael a prophet as well as a messenger.

[19:54] And commemorate Ishmael in the Book, for he was true to his promise, and was an Apostle, a Prophet.

It also describes Ishmael as among people of patience and steadfastness.

[21:85] And (remember) Ishmael, Idris, and Zul-kifl, all (men) of constancy and patience.

Ishmael and Isaac had both been inspired by God.

[4:163] Lo! We inspire thee as We inspired Noah and the prophets after him, as We inspired Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and Jesus and Job and Jonah and Aaron and Solomon, and as We imparted unto David the Psalms.

[6:86] And Ishmael, Elisha, Jonah, and Lot; each of these we exalted over all the people.

The Quran also describes Ishmael as among the best of men.

[38:48] Remember also Our servants Ishmael, Elisha, and Dhul Kifl, they were all among the excellent.

This is the first of two questions you asked, which was the ‘gentle son’?

So, from the Quran I gave you the verses that refer to a gentle son and a righteous son, and though the verses may appear like two sons, only one could be referred to as a gentle son.

That was from the Quran, which doesn’t name the son, and I would have spared you from this, but this is the evidence that Ishmael was not of a ‘gentle‘ nature.

That may be so in the Bible but not in the Quran. In the Quran, both Isaac and Ishmael was among the excellent.

[38:45] And remember our servants Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, men of might and vision.

[38:46] Verily we purified them with a [perfect] purification, through the remembrance of the life to come.

[38:47] And truly, they are in Our sight among the elect and the best.

[38:48] Remember also Our servants Ishmael, Elisha, and Dhul Kifl, they were all among the excellent.

In Genesis 16, it says this of Ishmael:

8. She (Hagar) said, “I am fleeing from the presence of my mistress Sarai.”

9 The Angel of the LORD said to her, “Return to your mistress, and submit yourself under her hand.”

10 Then the Angel of the LORD said to her, “I will multiply your descendants exceedingly, so that they shall not be counted for multitude.”

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.”

(Ishmael married an Egyptian woman so would be 3 parts Egyptian, so his brethren were not the Jews, as his descendants settled in a different area.

As Boston mentioned, the Ishmaelites were merchants when they bought Joseph from his brothers, who were farmers, so they were doing well in business.)

Quote from Post 33:

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: --- The word “only” is in Gen 22:2, some years after Hagar and Ishmael had left, and the commentator preferred the word “only,” to the name Isaac.

Here it is in context from Gen 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.”

3 So Abraham rose early in the morning and saddled his donkey, and took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son; and he split the wood for the burnt offering, and arose and went to the place of which God had told him.

4 Then on the third day Abraham lifted his eyes and saw the place afar off.

5 And Abraham said to his young men, “Stay here with the donkey; the lad and I will go yonder and worship, and we will come back to you.”

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.”

13 Then Abraham lifted his eyes and looked, and there behind him was a ram caught in a thicket by its horns. So Abraham went and took the ram, and offered it up for a burnt offering instead of his son.

14 And Abraham called the name of the place, The-LORD-Will-Provide; as it is said to this day, “In the Mount of the LORD it shall be provided.”

15 Then the Angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time out of heaven,

16 and said: “By Myself I have sworn, says the LORD, because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son—

17 blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies.

18 In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.”

19 So Abraham returned to his young men, and they rose and went together to Beersheba; and Abraham dwelt at Beersheba.

Notice that in v 16 it refers again to Isaac as ‘your only son.”

Genesis is not the Quran.

You claimed that there is no contradiction between the Quran and the Bible. The Bible says that the intended sacrifice was with Isaac. If you wish to prove that the Quran says the same thing, you will have to use the Quran only. I have made that request several times before but you keep ignoring it. That is not a very healthy approach in discussions of any sort.

Using Genesis to support your argument is meaningless and fraudulent. So far you have failed to support your claim from the Quran. The Quran is much too clear on the subject. It speaks about two sons and it speaks about the birth of Isaac after the incident of the sacrifice.

If you disagree, you must prove your point using the Quran only. I have always treated you with respect. So please give us some respect too.

There is a very clear contradiction between the Bible and the Quran. I am not saying that the Quran is right and the Bible is wrong. That is for everyone to decide for him or herself but clearly, only one can be right - not both. And they are not saying the same thing.

The Quran says the opposite of the Bible in a lot of things. As I said before, if you refuse to accept the blatant truth, that is your prerogative but it is groundless.

I have nothing more to add.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Hi Ilove,

I have this to add,

The first question was asked about ‘a gentle son,’ --- which we can leave to the opinion of the readers, if they are fair minded enough to read both accounts.

Your second question was about the ‘only son,’ which was assumed to be Ishmael, because he was the oldest and until the age of 14 was the only son.

When I asked the previous Posters, “Where does it say ‘only son’?

Two responded to say, “Genesis 22:2.”

So, when they said ‘Genesis,’ that took the discussion back to the Torah, for clarification.

However, it says, “Only son, Isaac.”

And as you yourself have copied the verses from Gen 22: 1-19.

Notice that in these verses, Isaac is named 5 times and in 2, and 16, he is referred to as ‘your only son.’

There is no mistaking that this is how the Scripture was written, --- and it follows that the Promise was given through Isaac:

16. “By Myself I have sworn, says the LORD, because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son—

17 blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies.

18 In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.”

Notice: --- Another thing is that Isaac also had to be submitted to God and obedient to Abraham to allow himself to be bound on the Altar.

--- Though this means nothing to you, --- the symbolism of Isaac being sacrificed, and willing to die, is a ‘foreshadowing’ of Jesus being the sacrifice for sin.

Isaac was ‘resurrected’ from the altar and lived on to fulfill God’s purpose, --- and Jesus went through death and was resurrected to fulfill God’s purpose, --- which was defeating death, sin, and Satan, --- which had come on all mankind through the sin of one man, Adam. 1 Corinthians 15:20-28.

Notice: --- this is an interesting prophecy:

“And your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies.”

--- What do the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob possess today? --- “Their promised land of Israel.”

--- And who are the enemies at their gate?

Placid

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

The first question was asked about ‘a gentle son,’ --- which we can leave to the opinion of the readers, if they are fair minded enough to read both accounts.

Your second question was about the ‘only son,’ which was assumed to be Ishmael, because he was the oldest and until the age of 14 was the only son.

When I asked the previous Posters, “Where does it say ‘only son’?

Two responded to say, “Genesis 22:2.”

So, when they said ‘Genesis,’ that took the discussion back to the Torah, for clarification.

However, it says, “Only son, Isaac.”

And as you yourself have copied the verses from Gen 22: 1-19.

Notice that in these verses, Isaac is named 5 times and in 2, and 16, he is referred to as ‘your only son.’

There is no mistaking that this is how the Scripture was written, --- and it follows that the Promise was given through Isaac:

16. “By Myself I have sworn, says the LORD, because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son—

17 blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies.

18 In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.”

Hi Placid

It does not interest us what the Bible says about 'the only son' or 'the gentle son'. It has no bearing on the Quran or on Muslim beliefs. If there are divergences betwen the Quran and the Bible, it merely shows the contradictions between them.

In Islam, the problem of 'the only son' or 'a gentle son' does not exist. I have already given you verses from the Quran which proclaim both brothers as men of God, as prophets and as men of the highest excellence. Your belief that Isaac was gentle and Ishmael was not is irrelevant to us. The Quran does not mention either 'the only son' or 'the gentle son'. It does mention 'a gentle son' and I have already pointed out the difference between 'a gentle son' and 'the gentle son'. I am not going to keep repeating it. Please read my last post.

As far as the Quran is concerned, both sons were excellent men, just like their father.

End of story.

Your second question was about the ‘only son,’ which was assumed to be Ishmael, because he was the oldest and until the age of 14 was the only son.

Not at all. Why would we need to assume that ‘the only son’ mentioned in the Bible refers to Ishmael ? We should not have to. The Bible is irrelevant to our beliefs.

The major reason for my last post was to respond to your nonsensical claim that there is no contradiction between the Quran and the Bible. If you hadn’t made that claim, I would not have bothered. You further said that the contradiction is, in fact, between the Quran and hadeeth.

That was a big falsehood you had imputed to our religion. Clearly, you did not know of a hadeeth that tells us that the sacrifice was meant for Ishmael. But you blurted out falsely. You made a false statement and obviously, you could not support it. Because there is no such hadeeth.

You also said that the reason why Muslims believe that Ishmael was the intended sacrifice, was because they thought that ‘a gentle son’ referred to in Sura 37 was Ishmael and not Isaac.

That was another falsehood you imputed to Islam. As I have already told you, the reason why Muslims believe that the intended sacrifice was Ishmael is the Quran itself. Please read my last post.

You are much too fond of making false statements about Islam, just to slake your zeal to prove Christianity right. I have reprimanded several people in the past for taking you on. In response, all I got from you is a subtle sweet-talker, who is determined to destroy Islam by sugar-coated dozes of falsehoods.

I have debunked your claim that the Quran and the Bible are not contradictory in regard to the question whether Isaac or Ishmael was the intended sacrifice. I have always shown respect to other religions including yours, but if you expect me to believe everything that the Bible says, even if it in opposition to the Quran, you are deluding yourself. I will continue to show respect to other religions like I have always done, as long as people don’t sugar-coat their assertions to the detriment of Islam.

The discussion is not about ‘the only son’ or the gentle son’ but about the contradiction between the Bible and the Quran, which you claimed does not exist.

Notice: --- this is an interesting prophecy:

“And your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies.”

--- What do the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob possess today? --- “Their promised land of Israel.”

--- And who are the enemies at their gate?

Sorry, my friend

Why do you think I would worry about a Biblical prophecy ? Do you realize I am not a Christian ? I don't believe in the Bible. It is not my book.

But since you have mentioned it, I would suggest that it doesn't pay to gloat over worldly success. Any land or property that you or anyone may acquire in this life, is for this life only. It does not determine your rewards in the next life. In fact, the more deprived or dispossessed you are in this life, the greater the chance of your sins being forgiven.

Islam urges us to seek higher objectives. This world is only a passing bubble.

Keep on dreaming and enjoy !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • 9 years later...
  • Advanced Member
On 6/26/2011 at 9:36 AM, orthodox1234 said:

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 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.

The Jewish Christians in Corinth were refusing to eat meat sacrificed to idols, yet gentiles had no problem with it and Paul didn't accuse the gentiles of being hypocrites on the contrary encouraged them to be more patient with their 'weaker' brothers who thought it a sin to eat meat sacrificed to idols.

“Grace” is for people who acknowledge and sincerely attempt to follow the Law, while inevitably erring, repenting, and seeking forgiveness along the way, yet not ceasing to adhere to the Law to the best of their ability. If one does not recognise the Law, then the concept of “grace” is redundant, since the “grace” provides for nothing. According to the Trinitarians, one does not need to perform at all, since “grace” is sufficient. Therefore, according to the Trinitarians, good works—works implicitly being based and judged on standards or laws—are an impediment to receiving the fullness of divine “grace,” not a medium. In fact, without anything to measure against, “grace” becomes totally meaningless as a concept, since everything is relative in this material world. The Trinitarians are thus know-nothing nullifiers: hucksters and fraudsters who prey on the gullible. They do everything they wish because their “god” sanctions their whims and fancies, hence all the criminal, parasitic televangelists and perverts who hide behind evangelicalism, the Catholic Church, et al., without earning an honest day’s halal income. All the pretenders and phoneys who simulate fake “exorcisms” (while raping and abusing women and children, or engaging in homosexual trysts, prostitution, and whatnot) and frighten their audiences into total, illogical, drug-like, submissive stupor. God-given logic be damned, per the Trinitarians.

The irony is that the Trinitarian Christians, as penultimate hypocrites, have been among the very worst xenophobes, nationalists, and racists in all human history, if not the worst, while using the Jews (“Talmudic Pharisees”—of whom Prophet Jesus, incidentally, was one, according to the Book of Matthew!) and others as foils and proxies for their criminal beliefs and actions. According to the Book of Matthew, Prophet Jesus himself supported the scribes, the Pharisees, the 613 mitzvot, and the Law of Moses; he merely impugned the scribes’ and Pharisees’ own reluctance to implement the mitzvot and the Law in their lives. Nowhere did Prophet Jesus himself condemn the 613 mitzvot or the Law of Moses. The Book of Acts also mentions that the Pharisee Gamaliel refused to condemn Prophet Jesus and his Pharisaic, reformist movement outright; Acts also notes that the masses of the Jews, along with a growing number of “God-fearing” pagans, i.e., Gentile philosophers who admired monotheism, followed Prophet Jesus and/or sympathised with his Pharisaic, reformist movement. Some Shia hadith even mention that Prophet Jesus and his followers fought in the three wars against the pagan ruling class, including the faithless Sadducees. Only the later terror of the Paulines, backed up by overwhelming military might, destroyed Prophet Jesus’ movement and scattered his immense following. The victorious Paulines then destroyed both the message of Prophet Jesus and actively destroyed the good things inherent in classical, pagan antiquity as well, hence the Dark Ages.

The Pauline progeny: feudalism, oppression, superstition, “superior race,” “superior doctrine,” antinomianism. Like Aleister Crowley, to the Paulines, “Everything was/is permitted.” Not even the worst of the pagans believed “everything is permitted,” certainly not under a religious guise, given that even pagan civilisations still practiced basic human morality based on fitrah, i.e., reciprocity toward one’s fellow man, personal and collective responsibility, practices beneficial for the survival/reproduction of the individual and group, etc. Otherwise, the Greco-Roman, Chinese, Hindu, Maya, Aztec, and other pagan civilisations would not have developed advanced sciences and survived as long as they have. Yet the Christian West has only been able to steal and plunder from these pagan civilisations as well as the Judaeo-Islamic one. (Cf. the Catholics’ actions against the Andalusian or “Moorish” civilisation.) Total amorality, barbarism, and massive armies based on usury were the only factors in the Christians’ favour; the rest of the world fell because it was too civilised and moral to understand the logic of the Christian West. Only the Mongols even remotely approach the Western Christians in terms of devastation, and their reign was far briefer and even supported by the Vatican vs. its rivals. Only the Christian West came up with LBGTQ+I nonsense, contraception, and other eugenics-based policies as desirable ends and all-purpose “solutions” in themselves. In essence, justifying harmful practices as solutions.

On 6/27/2011 at 2:00 AM, Abu Hadi said:

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 committing adultery is abrogated and we can commit adultery 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.

@THREE1THREE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Hi Northwest,

Quote from your post: “Grace” is for people who acknowledge and sincerely attempt to follow the Law, while inevitably erring, repenting, and seeking forgiveness along the way, yet not ceasing to adhere to the Law to the best of their ability. If one does not recognise the Law, then the concept of “grace” is redundant, since the “grace” provides for nothing. 

Response: --- This is an interesting thought that “grace’ is a ‘gift of God’ and that God lets us ‘live our own lives,’ and allows us to sin, and then promptly forgives us by ‘His grace,’ so that we are free to go and sin again.

--- It doesn’t seem that would ever lead to salvation.

Whereas there are verses that tell us how to follow the new teaching of Christ in the NT and how to find salvation through Faith, --- in Romans 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. 13 For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”

--- And speaking about the Laws that we are to keep, a lawyer asked Jesus in Matthew 22:36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?” 37 Jesus said to him, “’You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

And to prove that this is the instruction to Christians, it says in Romans 13:8 Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,”  “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

It was quite interesting to read this topic from nine years ago and see our discussions. --- However, the nine years have changed a lot of things in the world.

We have now entered a period of worldwide tribulation with the present Covid – 19 pandemic. --- In the Scriptures it says that it will be in the midst of ‘tribulation’ when the Rapture will take place.

--- The word Rapture is not in Scripture, but it refers to the ‘catching away’ of the ‘chosen’ which is mentioned in different places in Scripture, saying it will come unexpectedly and, ‘one shall be taken, and the other one left.’

--- I don’t believe this is mentioned in the Quran so it won’t be familiar to Muslims, --- but Christians are expecting it to take place very soon.

Apart from the pandemic the world has worsened in various ways. The nations are more divided, and many countries are plagued with riots or demonstrations that go on week after week.

--- One of the biggest problems is that the more ‘liberal’ governments accept the lifestyle of groups like the LGBTQ, which is destroying morality and family values. --- This is an abomination that will be judged by God. --- This is the idolatry that has taken over in society. It is the ‘worshiping of the creature’ rather than the Creator. --- So judgment will come on this ungodliness. --- The newer generations are growing up without knowing God’s love and forgiveness.

--- I am surprised that there are few readers on this Christianity forum at present. --- And few posters. Also it seems that most topics are negative against Christians.

 

So nine years later, I am just giving an announcement that soon God will intervene because it is His world, and the Scripture says in Amos 3:7 “Surely the Lord God does nothing, unless He reveals His secret to His servants the prophets.
8 A lion has roared! Who will not fear? The Lord God has spoken! Who can but prophesy?”

--- The loud cry of the world is like a lion’s roar to the people who are listening for God’s word. --- And the prophets are alerted to the coming events.

So, who will be prepared?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

I watched the videos where the Rabbi addresses the Christian misconception that the Old Testament teaches that there is no atonement for sin without a blood sacrifice using Leviticus 17:11 where it says:

11 “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.”

--- Since the life is in the blood, it was the sacrifice of the ‘shedding of blood’ of an innocent animal to take the place of, or be a substitute for, a sinful man. --- The Mosaic law taught this and it was symbolic of the innocent for the guilty, --- or the pure, for the impure.

Actually it does say in Hebrews 9:22 “And without shedding of blood there is no remission.”

--- It says of Christ in 1 Peter 3:18 “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit.” 

It gives a clear picture of the sacrifice of the blood of Christ in Hebrews 9:11  But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. 12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, 14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

18 Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood. 19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you.” 21 Then likewise he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. 22 And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission. --- 27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, 28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. 

 

So this is God’s plan of salvation. Mankind is sinful because of the sin of Adam and Eve. --- And we need to believe in God, and be ‘covered by the blood of Jesus Christ,’ to be acceptable to God, --- because the Scripture says in Acts 4:12  "Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
On 12/12/2020 at 3:26 AM, placid said:

ince the life is in the blood, it was the sacrifice of the ‘shedding of blood’ of an innocent animal to take the place of, or be a substitute for, a sinful man. --- The Mosaic law taught this and it was symbolic of the innocent for the guilty, --- or the pure, for the impure

You complete twisted and manipulated and took the verse out of complete context.  It has nothing to do with an innocent animal or non innocent. The sacrifice system was a test to the children of Israel , God doesn’t like sacrifices When the children of Israel were taken out of bondage prior to that many of them were sacrificing to idols thus they were used to sacrificing animals, so God kept the sacrifice system that they had been familiar with and ordered them instead to to sacrifice to Him alone as an atonement for their sins, then after Yeshua Ben Nun, Samuel taught God desires mercy not sacrifice we can see that God is pushing the idea of Mercy unto the children of Israel instead of the sacrifice system and He continued to preach that through His messengers and prophets in order to reform them. So this whole sacrifice system was to be abolished ages ago. 
 

Leviticus 17:10-12

10And any man of the House of Israel or of the strangers that sojourn among them, who eats any blood, I will set My attention upon the soul who eats the blood, and I will cut him off from among his people.

11For the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I have therefore given it to you [to be placed] upon the altar, to atone for your souls. For it is the blood that atones for the soul.

12Therefore, I said to the children of Israel: None of you shall eat blood, and the stranger who sojourns among you shall not eat blood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member

Even when I was a Christian, I never bought into the idea that Jesus' death was a blood sacrifice that was "necessary" for God to be able to forgive mankind for their sins. That theology asserts that there are conditions that God "needs" to have fulfilled in order to be able to forgive sin. I do not now, nor have I ever believed that God "needed" anything in order to do something that He wants to do. He is complete unto himself and "needs" nothing from His creation in order to do whatever He chooses to do.

This idea of God "needing" was a big part of why I left Christianity for Shia Islam. If God "needs", then he is not in fact complete unto Himself and is dependent on human actions to do that which He "wants" to do. This brings me to my next point: If God doesn't "need" anything because he is complete unto Himself, then He also has no desires and does not "want" for anything, because "desire" is a quality of incomplete, imperfect beings like mankind. Not Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 6/15/2011 at 7:12 PM, mehdi soldier said:

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

Yes, exactly 100%

On 6/13/2011 at 4:18 PM, Saintly_Jinn23 said:

What I was saying was that the idea that Jesus was a blood sacrifice for the sins of humanity can fit in the Bible

The idea of human sacrifice is considered repulsive and harshly condemned throughout the Tanakh...Judaism is opposed to every jot and tittle of this paganistic worldview...the Prophet Micah (a) asks rhetorically, “Shall I give my firstborn for my sin, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?” and replies, “He has shown you, O man, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with God.” 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 12/9/2020 at 3:25 PM, placid said:

The word Rapture is not in Scripture

The concept of 'rapture' is not found in historic Christianity. It's a relatively recent trend of Evangelical or American Bible Belt Protestantism

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
12 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:

The concept of 'rapture' is not found in historic Christianity. It's a relatively recent trend of Evangelical or American Bible Belt Protestantism

The concept of The Rapture™ was started by American Bible-belt Evangelicalism because they are terrified of the events which are said to occur in the book of Revelation, so they were looking for some sort of a way for their adherents to avoid them. Thus, they created The Rapture™, where Jesus (عليه السلام) will make all of the Evangelical Christians disappear into heaven so that they do not have to experience the horrors of the End Times™. Of course, this doctrine has absolutely zero basis in the bible yet is popular enough for Evangelicals to have written out detailed fantasies of how The Rapture™ and the End Times™ are going to go down. I have read some of these books in the popular Left Behind™ series when I was younger. They are degenerate and teach that anyone who is not an Evangelical Christian will essentially be a servant of The Antichrist (Dajjal) who Jesus (عليه السلام) will personally brutally murder when he returns on his white horse at the battle of Armageddon.

This includes Muslims (whom evangelicals hate the most for whatever reason, probably tied to 9/11 and White supremacy) and Jews (whom evangelicals pretend to love, but only because they believe that Jews and the creation of the State of Israel are necessary to fulfill biblical prophecy-- they believe that Jesus (عليه السلام) will put every remaining Jew to death upon his return after said battle). Evangelical End Times™ theology is thoroughly soaked in White supremacy that's leftover from the American South losing the civil war in 1865. It's a major problem but whether for better or for worse (likely for worse), American Christianity has all but been destroyed by liberalism, leftism, and the "New Atheist" movement of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, so on and so on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Abdul-Hadi said:

The concept of The Rapture™ was started by American Bible-belt Evangelicalism because they are terrified of the events which are said to occur in the book of Revelation, so they were looking for some sort of a way for their adherents to avoid them. Thus, they created The Rapture™, where Jesus (عليه السلام) will make all of the Evangelical Christians disappear into heaven so that they do not have to experience the horrors of the End Times™. Of course, this doctrine has absolutely zero basis in the bible yet is popular enough for Evangelicals to have written out detailed fantasies of how The Rapture™ and the End Times™ are going to go down. I have read some of these books in the popular Left Behind™ series when I was younger. They are degenerate and teach that anyone who is not an Evangelical Christian will essentially be a servant of The Antichrist (Dajjal) who Jesus (عليه السلام) will personally brutally murder when he returns on his white horse at the battle of Armageddon.

This includes Muslims (whom evangelicals hate the most for whatever reason, probably tied to 9/11 and White supremacy) and Jews (whom evangelicals pretend to love, but only because they believe that Jews and the creation of the State of Israel are necessary to fulfill biblical prophecy-- they believe that Jesus (عليه السلام) will put every remaining Jew to death upon his return after said battle). Evangelical End Times™ theology is thoroughly soaked in White supremacy that's leftover from the American South losing the civil war in 1865. It's a major problem but whether for better or for worse (likely for worse), American Christianity has all but been destroyed by liberalism, leftism, and the "New Atheist" movement of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, so on and so on.

Most aspects of modern Evangelical Christianity have no basis in the Bible or the agreed upon, authentic teaching of Jesus(peace be upon him). The Rapture is just one of them. At least the rapture is talked about vaguely in the Book or Revelations, although the Evangelicals add in alot of nonsense that is not in the Bible. There are even more strange aspects of it. Look up the Prosperity Doctrine. Basically give all your money to the guy on t.v. so he can become fabulously wealthy and buy a private jet and a Rolls Royce then you will be following the teachings of Jesus and Jesus will be happy with you and give you money ? Even more weird is the fact that Evangelicals hate muslims and love jews even though Muslims believe in Jesus, believe he was the Messiah (although we have a slightly different understanding of this term), believe in his Blessed Mother, Mary, believe in the Virgin birth of Jesus(peace be upon him) and Jews think Jesus was a con artist. So if everything is about Jesus then it should be the opposite. So that's another weird thing. I'll stop there, I could go on for a while with this. 

There was a song in the 80's called 'Rapture' by a group called Blondie. It was a really popular song for a while. I think they made the song just to make fun of the Evangelical concept of the Rapture. It was the maybe the first instance of trolling, before the Internet. Of course, I don't condone mocking anyone but if you listen to the song there is definitely that vibe. That song was very popular in America, btw, where most of the Evangelicals are. It was the first song I actually remember hearing on the radio (I was a little kid when it came out). 

Edited by Abu Hadi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

There was a song in the 80's called 'Rapture' by a group called Blondie. It was a really popular song for a while. I think they made the song just to make fun of the Evangelical concept of the Rapture.

I'm familiar with Blondie as I come out of the punk scene, but I think that the song was talking about the new (back then) form of "rap music" rather than poking fun at Evangelicals and the belief in the doctrine of The Rapture™ (I put the "trademark" symbol next to it because it's a specific invention of evangelical churches and no church, either protestant or catholic/orthodox throughout history has held to this belief)

 

 

3 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

Look up the Prosperity Doctrine. Basically give all your money to the guy on t.v. so he can become fabulously wealthy and buy a private jet and a Rolls Royce then you will be following the teachings of Jesus and Jesus will be happy with you and give you money ?

Funny you should mention this, because I never considered preachers of the Prosperity Gospel to be Christians at all. I always considered them to be religious swindlers & hucksters who knew exactly how to manipulate people into giving them what they wanted by splashing a coat of Christian paint onto the incredibly weak doctrine that they preached which is primarily centered on this life and not the next.

Edited by Abdul-Hadi
punctuation
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Abdul-Hadi said:

I'm familiar with Blondie as I come out of the punk scene, but I think that the song was talking about the new (back then) form of "rap music" rather than poking fun at Evangelicals and the belief in the doctrine of The Rapture™ (I put the "trademark" symbol next to it because it's a specific invention of evangelical churches and no church, either protestant or catholic/orthodox throughout history has held to this belief)

 

 

Funny you should mention this, because I never considered preachers of the Prosperity Gospel to be Christians at all. I always considered them to be religious swindlers & hucksters who knew exactly how to manipulate people into giving them what they wanted by splashing a coat of Christian paint onto the incredibly weak doctrine that they preached which is primarily centered on this life and not the next.

I always thought because of the bells in the background (church bells) and she is wearing a cross in the video, and the man from mars eating people. I don't know, maybe I am totally wrong about this. Just thought it was interesting. I recently heard the song when I was shopping at H & M. I hadn't heard it in like 10 years. 

I know there are alot of people that think the prosperity doctrine is a joke, like 'How could anyone actually believe that'. There are millions of people in the US, and even many outside the US, who believe in it. Scary stuff. We should be aware of it. 

Edited by Abu Hadi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

Just thought it was interesting. I recently heard the song when I was shopping at H & M. I hadn't heard it in like 10 years. 

I haven't seen the music video for that song since I was living in New York state briefly in late 2010-2011. It's been a long time and I don't remember any of it aside from there being a black guy in a white tuxedo with a top hat dancing around in the street.

 

 

3 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

There are millions of people in the US, and even many outside the US, who believe in it. Scary stuff. We should be aware of it. 

Yeah it's a major problem because Prosperity Gospel has little to nothing to do with actual Christianity and seems like a way for people in the US (and those external to it) to justify hoarding wealth and living decadent, lavish lifestyles. I actually blame prosperity theology for being one of the things that killed off the church in America but it is a uniquely American type of theology and is incredibly dangerous because it is fundamentally tied to the idea of Christian dominionism which is an important component in imperialism that's used to justify invading countries like Iraq and Afghanistan so that the inhabitants of those countries can "be converted to Christianity and the American way". It's highest point was in the 80s with Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker and the PTL club but it had a brief revival during the George W Bush administration, particularly in the first term. A modern Prosperity Gospel preacher is Joel Osteen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Symposium 'Is Israel Setup For Destruction?' Ahmed Deedat and former US congressman Paul Findley (circa 1989)…fast forward to 2:25:45 Christian doctrine of PREMILLENNIALISM  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
12 hours ago, Abdul-Hadi said:

I come out of the punk scene

Ah interesting...I always said that ex-punks and anarchists would make some of the best Shi'i Muslims...out of curiosity, what subgenre did you belong to? (Anarcho-punk, Oi, Straight Edge, Hardcore etc.)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
11 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:

Ah interesting...I always said that ex-punks and anarchists would make some of the best Shi'i Muslims...out of curiosity, what subgenre did you belong to? (Anarcho-punk, Oi, Straight Edge, Hardcore etc.)?

I didn't belong to a specific set, but the majority of shows I went to were straight-edge Hardcore and Street-punk/oi. The Anarcho-punk thing was not big around here and I feel glad that I didn't get caught up in it because the majority of those people are the ones who have a very personal axe to grind with religion and religious people, are very concerned about so called "gay/trans liberation" and despite having the prefix "anarcho" attached to their set name, have so many rules and regulations on what you can say, believe, and do that it's a mystery to me why they have the "anarcho" in their set name at all. Anarcho-punk are the ones who draw the energy and fun out of every room they enter. They dress in all black and all they do is complain about everything all the time: from what you're eating to what you're reading. They're very concerned with "reactionary" things-- books, tv, music, movies, religion, eating habits-- they want anything "reactionary" to be essentially purged from society so that they can enforce their ever-expanding list of rules on people. They're very strong proponents of cancel culture & will cancel anyone who commits the cardinal sins of being unapologetic about being white, heterosexual, or male (despite the majority of them being white kids from relatively well-off backgrounds and elite schools that their parents pay for, living in gentrified neighborhoods of cosmopolitan urban centers on their parents' dime, refusing to work, are all "artists", "musicians", or "filmmakers" and as a rule, practice some sort of alternative lifestyle or have a custom twitter gender).

Oftentimes these types will talk about how much they "love Muslims" despite the fact that they hate Islam for being "reactionary" and are only using the term "Muslim" as a synonym for "Arab/Middle Eastern". They are frequently involved in domestic terror gangs like the Animal Liberation Front (vegans that burn down McDonalds/farms) or Antifa (group that exists solely to intimidate conservatives/traditionalists, who they label as "fascists" with violence, vandalism, and harassment). As a matter of fact, they have no problem physically assaulting people for the "crime" of not making signals of solidarity with them, and just refusing to raise your fist, "take the knee" or perform some other form of cultural signal is enough to earn yourself an assault from them.

So yeah, I am not a fan of the Anarcho-punks. They are a radical cultural Marxist contingent that seeks to destroy traditional values and enforce atheism (or sometimes reconstructionist paganism/goddess worship/etc) on society and I disavow that which they do and believe in.

Fun fact: A former Vegan Straight-Edge musician, Sean Muttaqi, ended up becoming a Muslim. This was one of the ways that I first found out about Islam, by reading interviews with him. I do not know what he is doing now, nor do I think that he's making music anymore, he was running xUPRISINGx records for a while and had put out albums of spoken word by Amir Suleiman, but I think that he's probably out of that now and simply living a family life. He'd likely be in his early to mid 50s by this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)

@Abdul-Hadi, The further back in time (70's, 80's, early 90's) one goes the more authenticity the punk movement had...I'm talking pre-Hot Topic punk scene...like everything else, it's been completely compromised and commandeered...are you a Millennial or a Generation X'er BTW? Conservatives are claiming that the Open Society Foundations (OSF) are the primary backers funding postmodernism and most of the radical leftist organizations and LBGTQIA and black nationalist movements (e.g. BLM) behind closed doors...they're financing movements both domestically and abroad according to right-wingers…and I can easily see this being the case...in 2013, it had a budget of $873 million and in 2017 George Soros transferred $18 billion to the OSF...you can buy lobbyists and sway entire governments with that type of funding...Pakistan ordered the OSF to halt operations within the country in 2017...and Putin banned the activities of the Open Society Foundations on its territory in 2015, declaring "It was found that the activity of the Open Society Foundations and the Open Society Institute Assistance Foundation represents a threat to the foundations of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation and the security of the state"

Edited by Eddie Mecca
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:

.are you a Millennial or a Generation X'er BTW?

I'm a millennial, I'm 35.

I've heard all about the OSF, George Soros, and I've definitely heard that they are how these democrat party-adjacent radical groups like BLM and those affiliated with LGBTQ get their money. The point of these groups is to use them, give them free & sympathetic media exposure through CNN, MSNBC, etc and use them to drag the Overton window (the window of acceptable mainstream opinion in America) to the left bit by bit. BLM is a radical black nationalist group that is based in cultural Marxism because they seek to "abolish the nuclear family" and something something something "queer black people". It always comes back to "queer" with these groups, because they are obsessed with sex and normalizing whatever kind of perverse sex that they want to have. It was the same way with the anarcho-punks, everything with them came back to "queer & trans" because by demolishing all morals related to normal sexual behavior, they can demolish truth itself and then when truths as fundamental as what makes a man different from a woman is destroyed, they can push any sort of radicalism that they want to push as the "truth" is whatever they say it is rather than what Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) says the truth is.

I know all this, but the problem that I have is that I can't prove any of it beyond a reasonable doubt. What I find to be the most insidious is how these radical cultural Marxist groups try to co-opt Islam by saying that they "stand with Muslims" except in this case, "Muslim" doesn't mean Muslim, it means "people of Arabic or middle eastern ethnicity". Islam is the last big obstacle that they have to defeat, because Islam is much less flexible than American Christianity in terms of what is permitted and what is forbidden morally. So by saying "we stand with Muslims" and using Muslim as a synonym for yet another non-White demographic, what they're actually seeking to do is to infect Islam with their (lack of) values and change it with Bid'ah hence why on Reddit and Twitter now you have a trend called "progressive Muslims" that not only approve of zina, sodomy, transgenderism, and anti-White racism-- they celebrate it. To make matters worse, when they act like "progressive Islam" is a real thing, it sends the message to these liberal, self-hating white kids that all you have to do in order to gain your spot on the oppression hierarchy is say "YAY I'M LIKE A MUSLIM NOW!" without saying the prayers, without doing the research, or even believing in Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) or that Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was the final prophet & then people assume that people like me "became Muslim" for that same reason and then our families and even the ummah at large don't take us seriously and thus, do not want to mentor us or fellowship with us.

Another brother called this trend "blue damage": infecting and destroying Islam with liberal and leftist bid'ah as opposed to "red damage" which is Trump Republicans burning the Glorious Quran, putting bacon on the steps of the Masjid, and other things that are hurtful but don't do that much damage to Islam (we've been through worse in history and where are we now?). Blue Damage is going to be what actually destroys Islam and we have got to guard against it in our faith communities, with younger brothers and sisters, and in our own hearts.

Edited by Abdul-Hadi
used words in the wrong order
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
Posted (edited)

It's very easy to go down the 'rabbit hole' with these things. There are lots of conspiracy theories floating around. Some are true, some have an element of truth, and some are completely false. The main thing we always have to keep in our mind is to do Tabarra (distance ourselves in beliefs and actions) from the enemies of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). Many muslims practice Tawassul(endearing ourselves to the ones chosen by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), but they forget about Tabarra, which is equally important, because if we don't do that, doing Tawassul won't help us because we will be led astray by the enemies of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). The enemies of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) are the ones who promote beliefs which contradict Quran and clear teachings of Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)) and  actions which Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has forbidden. That is the clear line. Anyone who does this is an enemy of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), whatever they call themselves. The can call themselves 'Progressive Muslims', but that is just a label they give themselves. Those who promote those things have nothing to do with Islam. Being against someone simply because of the color of their skin or their ethnic / cultural heritage is against Islam i.e. against the clear teachings of the religion and it is also racism. Just because these are black people being racist against white people (simply because they are white and not because of their actions) doesn't make it any different than white people who do the same thing to black people. 

As for the queer / transgender stuff I have talked many times about this on the site. Whatever Islam says about this issue has also been said in the Bible and in the Torah, but Christians and Jews are not willing to go against the 'mood of the time' in order to stand firm behind what Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has ordered. When it gets to a point where society says one thing and Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) says something different, we are to follow what Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) says and not what society says, and this is what it means to be muslim, i.e. to 'Submit' to the will of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) when it is different from our will or the will of society or the 'social trend'. 

Edited by Abu Hadi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
On 6/13/2011 at 12:49 AM, mehdi soldier said:

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.

Hello I would like to come into this conversation for a bit

There is nowhere the rabbi denied the blood sacrifice as being a method because he cannot deny it. Take a look at these scriptures for me from Leviticus 10:16 and tell me what you think.

Quote

 

  And Moses diligently sought the goat of the sin offering, and, behold, it was burnt: and he was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar, the sons of Aaron which were left alive, saying,      
  Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin offering in the holy place, seeing it is most holy, and God hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the LORD?      
  Behold, the blood of it was not brought in within the holy place: ye should indeed have eaten it in the holy place, as I commanded.      
 

And Aaron said unto Moses, Behold, this day have they offered their sin offering and their burnt offering before the LORD; and such things have befallen me: and if I had eaten the sin offering to day, should it have been accepted in the sight of the LORD?

 

 

This shows the reason the goat was requested by God

Whether there are other way does not discredit blood sacrifice or if God would bring a Lamb for an offering.

Now may I turn it around where in the bible does it say repentance brings atonement. I agree repentance is required of God yet repentance will not forgive.

I heard many Jewish people bring to me scriptures where God says that if you turn back to me he will heal their land and for give their sin. What they don't take into account is that they were required to follow the Levitical laws which included animal sacrifice.

What places a person in hell is having to stand before God in Judgement day carrying their own sins which could have been washed away by the blood of Christ. 

The scripture also shows the sin offering animal sacrifice was a method used to be accepted in the Sight of the Lord as Aaron clearly states.

Edited by tek91
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...