Here is a typical Christian poster. But Jesus was not a lamb. He was a man with 2 legs, not 4. He had no wool. Not even a tail. And human sacrifice is condemned in the Bible. And the lamb wasn’t supposed to be bruised or have any physical deformities or defects.
Don’t let Christians con you this Easter. God forgives sins freely. No sacrifice required.
Categories: Christianity, God
Such blatant paganism. Ugh…
Jesus willingness (John 10:18) to be the sacrifice – His submission and not fighting back and humility and meekness was like a lamb sacrifice:
John the Baptizer یحیی (Yahya) said:
“Behold, the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” John 1:29
The prophet Isaiah prophesied of the Messiah Jesus, the suffering servant:
4 Surely our griefs He Himself bore,
And our sorrows He carried;
Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten of God, and afflicted.
5 But He was pierced through for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities;
The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,
And by His scourging we are healed.
6 All of us like sheep have gone astray,
Each of us has turned to his own way;
But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all
To fall on Him.
7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
Yet He did not open His mouth;
Like a lamb that is led to slaughter,
And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers,
So He did not open His mouth.
8 By oppression and judgment He was taken away;
And as for His generation, who considered
That He was cut off out of the land of the living
For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due?
9 His grave was assigned with wicked men,
Yet He was with a rich man in His death,
Because He had done no violence,
Nor was there any deceit in His mouth.
Isaiah 53:4-9
Jesus was the fulfillment of the Passover Lamb in Exodus 12
“For Christ our Passover lamb has been sacrificed.” 1 Corinthians 5:7
Jesus was the fulfillment of the lamb that Abraham told his son: “God will provide the lamb”
Genesis 22:7-8
Even the Qur’an agrees that the ram as a substitute for Abraham’s son was a “ransom” فدا ، فدیه and “slaughter”/sacrifice” ذبح
Qur’an 37:107
So we’re back to this again? Kenny mindlessly repeating the same debunked arguments? What happened to the nations before Jesus, who never heard of your mangod or had any idea about blood atonement?
Truth never changes. You did not debunk this at all.
Progressive revelation means God progressively revealed things over centuries.
But all cultures had a concept of animal sacrifice.
God killed animals (shed their blood) in order to make skins for clothes for Adam and Eve – after the first sin.
Genesis 3:21
Everyone is judged according to the light of revelation that they have received. Romans 2:12-16
Your fake “truth” isn’t impressing anyone. We have all seen the fatal flaw in your religion and how you struggled to explain it. Your religion has been exposed for all to see. It is an irrational, contradictory and unjust system of myths. The concept of blood atonement is a silly obsession which even your own god didn’t stringently follow.
So why did God set it up that way in the sacrificial system in the Old Testament?
(Genesis 3:21 (God killed animals to cover Adam and Eve’s nakedness, etc.) Genesis 7-9 (sacrifices by Noah); Job chapter 1; Genesis 22; Exodus 12 – Passover; Leviticus chapters 1-6 and 16-17 (day of atonement), Isaiah 53, etc.
God judges people by the light of revelation they receive is a general principle that is still true. But it is also still true that I don’t know for sure what happened to those who never got the message before Christ.
Both are true.
It is also true that Islam unknowingly affirmed substitutionary atonement by the verse about Abraham and the substitute ram for Abraham’s son:
“We have ransomed him with a mighty sacrifice.” Surah 37:107
وَ فَدَيْنَاهُ بِذِبْحٍ عَظِيمٍ – 37:107
فدیناه – “we ransomed him” – from فدا، فدیه (Ransom)
ب = by, with
ذبح = sacrifice, slaughter, victim
You’re full of crap and you have no idea how to fix this conundrum. Face the facts. Your god royally messed up his master plan. He deliberately kept people in the dark about his plan of salvation by only revealing himself to the Jews and then keeping the ultimate plan secret until only 2,000 years ago, when human history had already elapsed almost 200,000 years. So the majority of the world knew nothing about the Christian plan of salvation.
Ken smashed!
O dear o dear! Kenny is at it again boys!
Buahahahaha!
Ken, you cannot stand against the truth! Preaching is not gonna work!
Either you provide a real argument for your false religion or just save your time.
And look how Kenny is contradicting himself again! He keeps flip-flopping on the fate of the countless nations that existed before Jesus! First he claimed that they were forgiven, then he said “I don’t know, they probably go to hell” and now he is saying:
“Everyone is judged according to the light of revelation that they have received. Romans 2:12-16”
Stew, are you seeing this? You really messed up Kenny’s mind! He has no idea how to explain this gaping hole in his theology.
For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.
Leviticus 17:11
“And according to the Law:
without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.”
Hebrews 9:22
Blah, blah, blah. Still nothing to explain the gaping hole in your religion.
False. Go read Lev 5:11
“‘If, however, they cannot afford two doves or two young pigeons, they are to bring as an offering for their sin a tenth of an ephah of the finest flour for a sin offering. They must not put olive oil or incense on it, because it is a sin offering.
You have to keep reading – verse 12 (Leviticus 5:12) says that the priest will take a hand full of the grain offering and then offer it on top of the animal sacrifices.
You also have to keep reading all the way from Lev. 5:11 to 5:12 (above) and to chapters 6 and to 16-17 (The day of atonement) – once a year goes back and covers all the sins that were not covered, like the temporary grain / flour sin offering, and all other secret sins, intentional sins (chapter 6 also).
it’s the flour that atones for sin – as verse 5 clearly states.
verse 5 does not say that
verse 11 of chapt 5 does
But verse 12 explains that the priest takes a handful of the grain/flour offering and puts it on top of the animal sacrifices – the poor are allowed to put their grain offering on top of the blood animal sacrifices and so the truth of blood atonement stands.
Furthermore, Lev. 16-17 – day of atonement, goes back and covers all the sins – the ones that were not dealt with as an extra emphasis and covering of all sins by blood atonement, as Lev. 17:11 and Heb. 9:22 says.
So you are “smashed” and refuted !!
verse 11 states the flour atones.
first word of verse 12 “and” demonstrates verse 11 is not to be isolated from verse 12 and flow of context.
You are avoiding simple reading that a teenager can do. (context, reason, intellect, thought)
but verse 11 clearly says the flour is a sin offering
seems you are avoiding the intellectual exercise of reading a verse in context by reading the next verse.
verse 11 is clear. A non bloody sacrifice atones for sin. Thats what the verse says. There are numerous other examples in the Jewish Bible. Your religion is a fraud and a con.
No, you are doing a “con” job by isolating one verse from it’s context. Like the nutty TV preachers who take verses out of context and say Jesus promises you will always be rich and healed.
You are doing what the charlatans do.
are you aware that there are numerous passages in the bible where forgiveness of sins occurs without a sin offering?
It is all in the context of the sacrificial system in the OT and the coming of Christ as the final sacrifice in the NT.
and the Qur’an thought it was all the Word of God.
Surah 5:47
Surah 10:94
Your argument is nuked and smashed.
https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/blood-atonement/
Of course Rabbinic Judaism (after 70 AD and 135 AD – the destruction of the temple and the scattering of the Jews out of the promised land, after the Romans killed over 1 million Jews in those wars. (66-73 AD; and then the final exile of survivors to to other nations)
They had to come up with that excuse and interpretation because the temple was destroyed, and yet it was clear; and the Messiah had come and then the temple was destroyed (Daniel 9:24-27); when the Jews that survived -those that rejected Jesus as Al Masih / HaMashiakh, and they did not have a temple, that had to “make up” an interpretation like the ones you point to.
But you are in contradiction and inconsistency, since Islam calls Jesus of Nazareth “The Messiah” Al Masih المسیح
and since the temple is destroyed after Massih was cut off, Daniel 9:25-26, you are forced to either repent and believe in Him and the NT, or be stubborn and rebellious like those Rabbinic Jews and be inconsistent with Islam also. You choose stubborn rebellion against the Living God, who gave you the revelation before.
You are just in denial. The links provide irrefutable proof you are wrong about the Bible. The jews know their Bible better than you Ken.
First century Jews who accepted Al Masih المسیح knew the OT better.
Daniel 9:24-26
Messiah came
Messiah was cut off (killed), and fulfilled the 6 things in verse 24
The temple was destroyed after the Messiah was killed
Proving Isaiah 53 is about the Messiah and ransom atonement sacrifice, once for all.
The Book of Daniel is not actually by prophet Daniel as OT scholars now realise. It’s a made up story. Not authentic. So Muslims cannot rely on it. See the facts here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Daniel#Authorship
You jumped to “wikipedia” now; because the Jews you have been using believe in the book of Daniel – that it is inspired by God and that historical Daniel wrote it, around 530 BC, a few years after Cyrus conquered Babylon.
You are inconsistent and refuted.
Wrong on all counts. You own expert scholars refute you: https://bloggingtheology2.com/2019/03/23/book-of-daniel/
None of the Jews for Judaism scholars that you were using on the issue of blood atonement, agree with that liberal view of Daniel.
So, you are inconsistent and refuted.
how do you know?
Because I have listened to some of them and read some of them and heard Rabbi Tovia Singer also say they all believe in Daniel as a historical real prophet who wrote that book around 530 BC.
on that issue they are wrong. Do you know what, its quite possible to be right on some things and wrong on other matters
Yes, like the Qur’an was right to affirm Previous Scriptures (Surah 5:47; 5:68; 10:94), but wrong on historical truth (4:157) and wrong on doctrinal issues that Christians believed for 600 years. (6:101; 19:88-92; 5:72-75; 5:116)
Talk about changing the subject. Your own scholars refute your beliefs about the Bible. OUCH
You are in denial and refused to do something as simple as just reading verse 12 of Leviticus 5, which is a continuation of verse 11.
You distort the scriptures just as the quran says you do.
Even David realized his repentance also needed the blood on the hyssop branch for forgiveness and cleansing. Psalm 51:7
(see Exodus 12:22 – the hyssop branch was used to smear the blood of the sacrificial lambs on the door posts.)
https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/repentance-tshuvah/
https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/are-humans-so-sinful-that-they-need-a-sinless-agent-to-redeem-them/
They had to come up with that explanation because they rejected their own God (Yahweh, and His eternal Son, Jesus, who is also Yahweh by substance /nature, and the Holy Spirit) and they could not handle the fact and reality that the temple was no longer there. Rebellion forces wrong interpretations.
Ken keeps getting pounded and despite all of his ramblings and idiotic repetitions, he has STILL yet to explain the conundrum that nukes his fraudulent religion! Your religion has been smashed you idiot. Get over it! Man, I’m starting to feel like the Hulk!
Even if sacrifices were always required, which they were not, the fact still remains that your god kept this hidden from the majority of the world. This is the fatal flaw in your stupid religion and why no rational person would follow it. The lies of your religion have been exposed. Only brainwashed morons such as yourself will still keep towing the company line despite all of the evidence against it.
Faizy keeps getting pounded because Islam did not come until 600 years after the God-breathed revelations in the OT and NT.
600 years too late.
No one earlier knew about Muhammad or Sharia law or the Caliphate or the Shehada.
No one could say that for thousands of years:
لَا إِلٰهَ إِلَّا ٱلله مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ ٱلله
lā ʾilāha ʾillā llāh muḥammadun rasūlu llāh
There is no god but God. Muhammad is the messenger of God.
They could not confess the Shehada, therefore all were lost before Islam.
So your argument is nuked and smashed.
Hahahaha, trying to deflect again Kendra? I know, I know. It hurts not being able to refute the death blow to your idiotic cult of blood. Like I said, only brainwashed morons such as yourself will continue to cling to your religion and it’s idol. The rest of us will accept the truth and worship the true God alone. Your false god was incompetent to the point of forgetting to emphasize the obsession with blood atonement to the rest of the world. Maybe he didn’t realize that there were other people in the flat Earth he created? 🤣😂🤣
Poor Faizy,
It must hurt to realize your religion came 600 years too late, and therefore man-made and false.
Poor Kendra, still trying to deflect? Why did your god forget about the rest of humanity for almost 200,000 years? What kind of incompetent deity do you worship? Did he not realise that the world was a lot bigger than just a small strip of land in the Middle East? 😂
I can you have no way out. Your stuck and have no idea how to save your pathetic man-made, self-contradictory cult from it’s own self-inflicted wound. Repent so you don’t end up spending an eternity in the fire because you were too proud and stubborn to admit the truth.
What did your false god forget about the rest of humanity for 200,600 years?
Oh dear: https://bloggingtheology2.com/2019/03/23/book-of-daniel/
Still deflecting, are we Kendra? 🤣🤣🤣
If your god was so obsessed with blood atonement, why did he keep it a secret from the rest of humanity for the majority of its history? Answer the question dummy and stop deflecting. Your false cult and your fake god are counting on you!
“through you (Abraham) and your seed (Isaac and then down to Christ), all the nations of the earth will be blessed.”
Genesis 12:3, 22:17-18
Galatians 3:16
“some from every people, nation, tribe, and language were redeemed by the blood of lamb.” Revelation 5:9
“a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation, people, tribe, and language” Rev. 7:9
“there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus”
Romans 8:1
“Therefore, being justified by faith in Christ Jesus, we have peace with God.”
Romans 5:1
“whoever believes in Me has passed out of judgement into eternal life”. John 5:24
Jesus promised eternal life.
“There is no fear (of hell or punishment in hell) in love, but perfect love casts out all fear . . . ” We love, because He first loved us.” 1 John 4:18-19
“the second death has no power over the believers in Christ” (see Revelation 20:6)
and
“whoever’s name was not found in the Lamb’s book of life, was thrown into the lake of fire” Rev. 20:15
you (Faizy, and all Muslims) are the one (s) who will thrown into the lake of fire, unless you repent and trust in Christ (Al Masih / المسیح ) before it is too late.
Acts 17:30-31 –
God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, 31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”
STILL no answer for your cult’s conundrum? For the majority of human history, your god deliberately kept himself hidden from most of humanity. He royally screwed up his master plan. You worship a false god and there will be a nice, warm place in hell for pagans like you if you don’t repent. Your religion lies to you with false promises of salvation. It is not inviting you to salvation. It is inviting you to eternal damnation. Repent of your idolatry.
There is no fear of hell for true Christians – see all those verses and many more. Established 600 years before your false religion.
yours is worse since it is 600 years later.
““through you (Abraham) and your seed (Isaac and then down to Christ), all the nations of the earth will be blessed.”
Genesis 12:3, 22:17-18
Galatians 3:16
“some from every people, nation, tribe, and language were redeemed by the blood of lamb.” Revelation 5:9
“a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation, people, tribe, and language” Rev. 7:9”
LOL!!! Kendra is REALLY desperate! This doesn’t answer the question, moron! Why did your false god forget about the rest of humanity for 200,000 years? Answer the question.
Your pathetic “lamb” did not arrive until only 2,000 years ago. Moreover, the Jews never had any contact with the Aborigines or the Native Americans.
Your deflections and lies are only making things worse for you. Stop being a weasel for once and think clearly and honestly.
“There is no fear of hell for true Christians – see all those verses and many more. Established 600 years before your false religion.”
I couldn’t care less what your self-contradictory Bible says, idiot. What I am interested in is the GRAND CONUNDRUM that you have idea how to explain. This conundrum proves that Christianity is a man-made, false religion and that the Bible is a false book. So who cares what it says? You will go to hell because you are lying pagan weasel. Throw away your blasphemous paganism and get over your own ego. The door to repentance is always open, but if you wait too long, it will eventually close forever. You and your fellow Christian pagans will be in hell for your deception and lies against God.
A Jewish scholar that you have used in the past to make some of your points:
Geza Vermes, the Oxford professor, one of the foremost Jewish scholars of the Dead Sea Scrolls, stated that, “according to Jewish theology, there can be no expiation (atonement, forgiveness) without the shedding of blood: ‘en kappa rah ‘ella’ bedam” .
Redemption and Genesis 22: The Binding of Isaac and the Sacrifice of Jesus”, in his “Scripture and Tradition in Judaism, Studia Post-Biblica 4 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1961), page 205, larger argument, pages 193-227. In reference to Talmud, Ben Yoma 5a. Vermes adds, “The antiquity of this Talmudic rule is attested by the Epistle to the Hebrews 9:22, “without the shedding of blood, there is no remission” (ibid, 205, n. 4)
LOLOL fraud
Geza Vermes is a fraud ?
You.
I was just quoting him though.
No you were not! You lie.
get the book and see for yourself.
when you run out of intellectual arguments, you resort to insults and ad hominem tactics. Very telling for all to see.
LOLOL you do that all the time
😂🤣😂 and when you run out of arguments, you resort to mindless repetition and deflections like the lying little weasel that you are!
“A Jewish scholar that you have used in the past to make some of your points:
Geza Vermes, the Oxford professor, one of the foremost Jewish scholars of the Dead Sea Scrolls, stated that, “according to Jewish theology, there can be no expiation (atonement, forgiveness) without the shedding of blood: ‘en kappa rah ‘ella’ bedam” .
Redemption and Genesis 22: The Binding of Isaac and the Sacrifice of Jesus”, in his “Scripture and Tradition in Judaism, Studia Post-Biblica 4 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1961), page 205, larger argument, pages 193-227. In reference to Talmud, Ben Yoma 5a. Vermes adds, “The antiquity of this Talmudic rule is attested by the Epistle to the Hebrews 9:22, “without the shedding of blood, there is no remission” (ibid, 205, n. 4)”
Selective quotes…the last resort of a lying weasel. Here is what Vermes said:
“…according to Jewish theology, there can be no expiation without the shedding of blood…NO virtue of atonement could convincingly be imputed to Isaac unless this condition were fulfilled. There is, of course, no scriptural foundation whatever for the belief that Isaac shed his blood, but, as has been shown more than once, theological theses had to be maintained even at the price of disregarding the Bible, and the new doctrine took root that atonement for the sins of Israel resulted both from Isaac’s self-offering and from the spilling of his blood.”
http://www.contra-mundum.org/books/Vermes.pdf
Also, Vermes completely demolishes the Pauline concept of mangod savior:
“Paul’s symbolic use of the Akedah acts as a bridge between the genuinely Jewish teaching of atoning suffering, and the non-Jewish concept of a Saviour who was both man and God.”
In fact, according to Vermes, the “salvation” of the Jews would be due to the binding of Isaac, NOT to the suffering of the Messiah:
“In short, the Binding of Isaac was thought to have played a unique role in the whole economy of the salvation of Israel, and to have a permanent redemptive effect on behalf of its people. The merits of his sacrifice were experienced by the Chosen People in the past, invoked in the present, and hoped for at the end of time.” (p. 208)
“…it has been shown that in the ancient liturgy of Israel a powerful bond linked the Binding of Isaac with Passover and with eschatological salvation.” (p. 218)
“According to its teaching, remission of sin, as well as present and future salvation, were due to the unique sacrifice of Isaac. The Passover was not only the annual commemoration of his sacrifice, but also a joyful reminder of its first decisive fruit and a prayer to God to bring about the final salvation of man.” (p. 226)
But, keep in mind that the Bible says NOTHING about Isaac shedding any blood. So this concept was developed DESPITE no Biblical support.
Another interesting quote from Vermes:
“Thus, to Isaac’s merit was due Israel’s salvation and the preservation of his descendants from death and divine disfavour. Furthermore, the virtue of his offering was believed to extend even beyond the barriers of history, as is shown in certain texts establishing a bond between the Akedah and the resurrection of the dead.’ (p. 207)
All this further serves to accentuate the GAPING and GRAND CONUNDRUM which Kendra is struggling to explain: the Jewish concepts of atonement and salvation ONLY applied to them, not to the rest of the world! So how were the Aborigines supposed to be saved? The “sacrifice” of Isaac did not apply to them. And to make matters worse, the mangod messiah of Christianity did not arrive until tens of thousands of years of history had already passed. It doesn’t do much good for the ancestors of the Aborigines who lived thousands of years before Jesus (pbuh).
In my quote, I was arguing that Isaac actually shed his blood, so your whole argument fails big time. The quotes I gave show that, “according to Jewish theology, there can be no expiation (atonement, forgiveness) without the shedding of blood: ‘en kappa rah ‘ella’ bedam” . (page 205, also see the footnote. It is all there for all to see.
I was not arguing that Isaac shed his blood. Obviously, the text says that God stopped Abraham from slaughtering him and provided a ram in his place. (Genesis 22:10-13)
The animal in the place of Abraham’s son was a ransom sacrifice, just as also the Qur’an indicates in Surah 37:107.
Abraham said that God would supply the lamb. (Genesis 22:7-8) – which was also fulfilled in the future by Jesus being the passover lamb. (John 1:29; 1 Corinthians 5:7)
So, it is you who are deflecting and obfuscating, since you avoided the whole point of both Geza Vermes and my argument.
poor little Faizy whiny baby.
Lol, the point is that you are a whiny, lying little weasel. Your appeal to Vermes backfired big time. He showed that the Jewish understanding of atonement contradicts the Christian understanding. No mangod dying for sins, only Isaac. So the very sources you inconsistently appealed to raise other objections to your religion. Your religion is still refuted. Not only my that, but it only accentuates the huge conundrum for your sick and idiotic cult. Poor, poor Kendra, a desperate and pathetic little pagan weasel. 😂🤣😅
Oops, typo:
In my quote, I was NOT arguing that Isaac actually shed his blood, so your whole argument fails big time.
Lots of Sufis Muslims and Darwish Muslims do Dhikr ذکر in a mindless repetition way, and hyper-ventilate, etc.
The’s not an argument against us! What represents Islam is the Quran,Sunnah, and understanding of Salaf.
My point is that Faizy keeps accusing me of “mindless repetition” – yet it (my arguments) is “thoughtful repeating of truths”.
Whereas there are many Muslims who do in fact do “mindless repetition”.
😂 Your point is moot because repetition in worship is different from mindless repetition in a debate with someone who doesn’t share your stupid beliefs. You are incapable of a rational response but your ego and stubbornness keep you from admitting the facts.
So I ask again. Stop deflecting and answer the question. Why did your god forget about the rest of humanity for so long? Come on, Kendra you silly weasel. I’m waiting…
Why did your false god of Allah, the Al Jabbar (the one who forces), the Kheir ol Makarreen” خیر المکارین – the most tricky and deceptive trickster and deceiver, why did he wait 600 more years than what you are accusing our God of in the NT ?
More deflections? Oh, poor poor Kendra! What’s the matter dear? Why can’t you answer the question? Are you so afraid of the truth, little weasel?
The conundrum applies only to your blood cult, not to Islam. Your fake god screwed up royally. So answer the question, you whiny little loser. I’m waiting…
//Why did your false god of Allah, the Al Jabbar (the one who forces)//
You just vomit your ignorance again and again. What El Gibbor means in the Hebrew bible?
//the Kheir ol Makarreen” خیر المکارین – the most tricky and deceptive trickster and deceiver//
Although we have refuted this ignorance again and again, but take this one which is probably a new thing for you.
The word (חָשַׁ֛בְתָּה) in Hebrew, it’s used for both God & men.
It has these meanings cunning work, scheme, plot, plan, and deep thought.
For example, we read in Proverbs “a heart that (plots) evil, feet that race to do wrong” or in Psalms “With (cunning) they conspire against your people; they plot against those you cherish” or in Isaiah “Their feet rush into sin; they are swift to shed innocent blood. They pursue (evil schemes) acts of violence mark their ways”
In the same time, God used the same word for Himself in your bible
“But they do not know the (thoughts) of the LORD; they do not understand his plan, that he has gathered them as sheaves to the threshing floor” In Micah . Or as in Isaiah “My thoughts are nothing like your thoughts,” says the LORD. “And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine.”!
Therefore, take the garbage of David Wood and his clowns out of here!
More deflections? Kendra is stuck, guys! Let’s keep him pounding him and his contradictory religion!
Ken always tries desperately to misinterpret the story of Abraham and his son in Qur’an. However, let’s shed light upon the story in his bible.
We know that the Pauline christianity uses this story as a typological story about Jesus and the atonement in which Isaac represents Jesus allegedly. But ironically Isaac was the one who got saved. He was substituted with a ram. Isaac was not the ram. As a result, the story negates the Pauline cult. Moreover, it seems that the story of Abraham and his son had been used by the memberes opposite belief of the Pauline cult among the earlier christians. Those christians who believed that Jesus got saved. This can be attested and read between the lines in the book of Hebrews. We read in that book that “While Jesus was here on earth, he offered prayers and pleadings, with a loud cry and tears, to the one who could rescue him from death. And God heard his prayers because of his deep reverence for God.” Hebrews 5:7. Also, we read the interpretive corruption of the story about Abraham and his son by using the “figurative speaking”. Hebrews 11:19.
“And indeed, there is among them a party who alter the Scripture with their tongues so you may think it is from the Scripture, but it is not from the Scripture. And they say, “This is from Allah,” but it is not from Allah . And they speak untruth about Allah while they know.” QT.
In conclusion, the story of Abraham and his son is against the Pauline cult.
It was the substitution of the ram that was a preview of future substitutionary atonement.
and the fact that it was a ram and not a lamb, but Abraham said, “God will provide the lamb” (Genesis 22:7-8) demonstrates he was also speaking of a future sacrifice – the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, (John 1:29) just as John the baptizer / Yahya یحیی said.
What are you talking about?! The story has nothing to do with Jesus unless you believe Jesus got saved and substituted.
Your argument is just baseless! The point is that Isaac, who represents Jesus, got saved not sacrificed with. The story demonstrates that christians are plying with history and the wording as Qur’an says.
Finally, the word “lamb” is הַשֶּׂ֖ה which means as in Arabic any member of a flock sheep or goat!
Not according to the Jews, whom you appealed to before. Now you want to disagree with them like a typical Christian pagan. Selective quotes of Jewish sources show how desperate you are to justify your idiotic beliefs. They didn’t believe in a mangod Messiah dying for mankind’s sins. They believed that Isaac’s blood was shed even though he didn’t die. And most importantly, there is NOTHING to explain how God’s plan of salvation applied to other nations. You still keep avoiding this conundrum because you know that it destroys your blood cult.
Many first century Jews did believe that – which later became the Christian view. All the first believers in Christ were Jewish.
Most of the first century believers in Jesus as Messiah who fulfilled Daniel 9:24-27 and Isaiah 52-52 and Psalm 22 and Psalm 68 and 110 and 2 and Deut. 18 and Genesis 3:15, 12:2, 22:17-18; 49:10; etc. – were most all Jewish.
Most of the writers of the NT were Jewish. Only Luke is a Gentile (non-Jew).
Irrelevant. First century Jews believed many things, stupid. That doesn’t mean they were right. Besides, first century Jewish-Christians did not have the same beliefs as you. Christianity developed over centuries.
The willingness and not withholding of his son Isaac, was a preview of God the Father not withholding His only beloved Son. (Genesis 22:12; Romans 8:32)
He said, “Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”
He who did not withhold His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?
The willingness and obedience of Isaac was a preview of Jesus’ voluntary willingness and obedience. (John 10:18)
And Isaac’s sacrifice was enough for the salvation of the Jews, according to this view. No need for a mangod Messiah which is not even a Jewish concept anyway. Kendra gets nuked again. 🤣
So why all the subsequent (after Genesis 22) revelation in Exodus 12, Leviticus 1-6, 16-17, Kings, Chronicles, Isaiah 53?
Why are all the pronouns in Isaiah 53 singular?
Why is the person in Isaiah 52:1-5, 53:1-12 a human?
😂 That’s the point, you dummy! Your Bible is a hopeless and contradictory mass of crazy ramblings. But one thing is consistent: no mangod needed for salvation. You’re stuck. Admit it.
You made no good point at all. You cannot answer the question as to why there is so much emphasis on sin and sacrifice for sin in the tabernacle and temple, etc. in the OT.
Revelation long before your false religion came about.
STILL not answering the question? I have destroyed your silly obsession with blood atonement. The Jewish sources contradict your foolish religion. You are too stubborn to admit it. Years of brainwashing have left their mark. Don’t blame anyone but yourself when you spend an eternity in the fire for your blasphemy and lies against God.
Whatever obsession you have with sacrifices and blood atonement, your god was not as obsessed with it. You are afraid to admit that, but I know that deep down inside, you know it to be true. You have no idea how to explain your why your god seemingly forgot that there were other people in the word besides the Jews. Those poor Aborigines…those poor Native Americans…Kendra’s god forgot they existed! No salvation for them apparently…
Isaiah 52:13-15
is about a future man, a suffering servant, an individual
Isaiah 53:1-12 also
Daniel 9:24-27 is also about a man in the future – a prince, a Messiah, who will:
make atonement for sin
make an end to iniquity
finish transgression
Blah, blah, blah. No, no, and no. See? So easy to refute. Just because you have these idiotic interpretations, does not mean they are right. The Jews, whom you tried to appeal to, do not share your interpretations. There is no such concept of a mangod messiah in Judaism. Get over it. Stop being a stupid, brainwashed weasel. Be honest. Be consistent.
Jewish writers and prophets wrote all those Scriptures.
especially in the OT.
you keep saying “obsession with blood sacrifice”
see 1 Chronicles 29:21
21 On the next day they made sacrifices to the Lord and offered burnt offerings to the Lord, 1,000 bulls, 1,000 rams and 1,000 lambs, with their drink offerings and sacrifices in abundance for all Israel.
seems the LORD, the Jewish God, had an obsession with blood sacrifices, huh?
Then later, in the prophets, the Suffering Servant, the Messiah, would take on sin, and he is a human, an invididual.
Isaiah 53
Daniel 9:24-27 – Messiah the prince; then Messiah is cut off. (see Isaiah 53:8 also, “cut off from the land of the living” = died. ), then the new temple that was rebuilt will be destroyed again.
Read about the Jewish man, Stan Telchin, who realized Daniel 9:24-27 was about Jesus of Nazareth.
https://www.amazon.com/Betrayed-Stan-Telchin/dp/0800794230
Poor Kendra is suffering and struggling to cling to his blood cult! There is no mangod Messiah in Judaism, you idiot! The scholar you previously so zealously quoted (and only partially), Geza Vermes, said this clearly. Thus, your pagan religion is refuted. No amount of mental gymnastics will change that. Get over it, you whiny little weasel.
Stan Telchin, a Jewish man, discovered Daniel 9:24-26 is about Jesus the Messiah. (listen at 30 minute mark and beyond)
Who cares?
Book of Daniel is not by Daniel. It’s is a made up story.
But, but, but…Stan Telchin believes it was by Daniel! It’s not evidence for anything, but still! Come on Paul. Just believe Kendra!
LOLOL
Rabbi Tovia Singer believes Daniel wrote it and prophesied of the events beforehand, around 530 BC – events of Daniel 10-11 many details of Jewish history future to Daniel were prophesied centuries before.
http://www.toviasinger.tv/small-bites/why-do-atheists-claim-that-daniel-is-a-forgery-rabbi-tovia-singer-exposes-their-motive-and-error/
So now you approvingly cite an anti-Christian Jewish polemicist you have dismissed before!
Its your own Christian experts on the Bible who refute you Ken.
Except that there is no evidence and Tovia Singer, like all faithful Jews, is wrong in this case. Boom!
actually, I am not suffering or struggling at all.
It is a great joy to constantly refute you.
Lol oh the hilarity! I think the holy Spirit has confused you. Your religion has been smashed, nuked and utterly destroyed. All you could manage were clumsy responses with mindless repetition and no actual evidence. Sorry Kendra, but you got annihilated! 😝
If I was annihilated why am I still here and why is it that I have refuted everything you have thrown out at me?
Because you like being humiliated? And you haven’t refuted anything? Why aren’t your fellow Christians helping you? They see you crashing and burning and trying desperately to deflect instead of dealing with the GRAND CONUNDRUM, which is what they would do too. Deflection is the strategy of brainwashed Christian pagans. 🤣😂🤣
Rabbi Tovia Singer believes Daniel is true and historical and predictive prophesy, and written around 530 BC.
Rabbi Tovia Singer also agreed that Daniel 9:26 = “destruction of the city and sanctuary” in 70 AD by the Romans.
Boom !!
He is not an Old Testament scholar but an anti-Christian polemicist who you have dismissed as worthless many times before!
Lol! So what? Appeal to authority doesn’t prove anything Kendra. Boom!
He is not an Old Testament scholar.
So?
You are not an OT scholar either.
Many scholars are atheists and agnostics. They nuke the Qur’an also.
So your appeals to liberal scholarship are inconsistent because they apply the same anti-supernatural bias against the Qur’an also.
The experts at the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church are not ‘atheists and agnostics’. They are Christians.
Gleason Archer was an OT scholar who defended Daniel’s historicity and authorship at 530 BC. (page 387, A Survey of OT Introduction)
He was a dogmatic biblical inerrantist. His fundamentalist beliefs dictated that the Bible must not contain any errors. That’s why he believed Daniel wrote the Book of Daniel. He was not a proper historian.
He was fluent in 7 languages, Hebrew and Aramaic and a scholar. you changed the goal post from “OT scholar” to now “proper historian”.
And ALL “proper historians” dismiss the Qur’an as unhistorical because of so many historical mistakes.
he was a dogmatic inerrantist. It corrupted his study of the Bible. He was incapable of being honest.
Just like you.
You just dismiss everything no matter what the evidence is.
LOLOL
That’s about as credible as the homosexual professor at Yale, Dale Martin, who does not believe the NT teaches the Deity of Christ or the Trinity, & doesn’t believe Jesus really rose from the dead in history, yet says he believes in the Trinity, and thinks same sex marriage is ok and fine, etc.
@ Ken
Quick note ain’t nobody nuked the Qur’an.
Now as for your next point, the shahadatain is not NECESSARILY required of a person depending on their circumstances and knowledge. The most important thing was they tried their best with what they had available and so God will have mercy on them. We have a multitude of hadith about this subject. So, the 600 year later argument doesn’t work for Islam because we never claimed Islam started with Muhammad(saw).
@ All
Seeing as I’m neutral on this subject.
Ken, what is your best paper or scholar in favor of Daniel being authentic?
Paul, what is your best paper or scholar in favor of Daniel being a forgery? Also, are you arguing a complete forgery or just parts?
I’m not saying is a forgery. It’s a work of fiction. Definitely not by Daniel. Virtually all scholars on the planet think so.
If it is not Daniel, but claims to be from Daniel, and was written around 167 BC, that is the definition of a “forgery”. (centuries after the historical Daniel, 530 BC)
Scholarly work that defends Daniel:
Gleason Archer’s chapter on Daniel in “Summary of OT Introduction” is good.
there are others, but I don’t have time to write any more right now.
https://www.amazon.com/Survey-Old-Testament-Introduction/dp/0802484344
Ken it doesn’t claim to be by Daniel lol
LOL
It sure seems to:
Daniel is commanded to preserve the whole book in which the words are found. (Daniel 12:4)
“But as for you, Daniel, conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time; many will go back and forth, and knowledge will increase.” Daniel 12:4
Daniel is named as the one who received the revelations and he also speaks in the first person.
Numerous references of Daniel speaking in first person about his revelations and observations:
“I Daniel . . .”
7:2, 4, 6ff.
7:28
8:1
8:15
9:2 – I, Daniel, observed in the book of Jeremiah . . .
10:2
12:5-8
Jesus Al Masih المسیح Himself said Daniel was the author of this book.
Matthew 24:15 “spoken of by the prophet Daniel” – let the reader understand.
Lol! We can see Kendra’s inconsistency on display. So apparently, using the first person somehow proves that Daniel was the author. But then since the gospel writers don’t use the first person to refer to themselves, like Matthew and John, then I guess it means they were not the authors right?
Or course, real scholars know that such an attribution is meaningless. There is a plethora of evidence that Daniel was written well after the Babylonian exile, and the last few chapters even later than that (during the time of Antiochus IV). So the first person use of Daniel is not proof of anything. If anything, it is proof that the real author was deceitfully claiming to be Daniel, or he was simply copying some other source.
There is a plethora of evidence that Daniel was written well after the Babylonian exile, and the last few chapters even later than that (during the time of Antiochus IV).
Mainly because of anti-supernatural bias and presuppositions that Divine prophesy cannot happen. (predicting events with such accuracy as Daniel 8, 9, 10, and 11 did, especially the details of chapter 11.
A Muslim is inconsistent to hold on to such a worldview of skepticism against predictive prophesy, because Islam is based on that also.
Uh no, you idiot. As I said, the last part of Daniel is clearly referring to the time of Antiochus. Intimate details of his life are shown, ending with his death and the resurrection of the dead in Daniel 12. This proves that Daniel was not the author.
the resurrection of the dead is not until the end of time – Revelation 20, 21, 22; John 5:25, 28-29; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18
“seal it up until the end of time”
Lol, you see? The inconsistency! Moving the goalpost! Why are you interpreting Daniel using books that came hundreds of years later? Why are you such a dishonest little weasel?
According to Daniel, after Antiochus’ death, the dead would rise to be judged. We know this because the previous chapters can only make sense in light of the events during Antiochus’ reign.
It does not say that the resurrection of the dead occurs right after Antiochus’ death.
Jesus takes the idea of Antiochius IV Ephiphanes abomination of desolations and applies it to a future even in His speech in Matthew 24 and Mark 13 – about 70 AD.
“He will pitch his royal tents between the seas at[f] the beautiful holy mountain. Yet he will come to his end, and no one will help him.” Daniel 11:45
“At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. 2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake:some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt…” Daniel 12:1-3
“At that time” means just that. There is no way it could mean thousands of years later.
or it proves that Divine prophesy is real and he predicted the events of all those kingdoms (Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome) and Antiochus IV Ephipanes abomination of desolations offering a pig on the altar in the temple to a statue of Zeus (167 BC) and he also predicted another abomination of desolation in 70 AD. (destruction of the rebuilt temple – Daniel 9:26-27)
and the resurrection from the dead (12:2) is still future to us – at the end of time.
All it proves is that you are an idiot and a dishonest little weasel. Read chapter 11 and 12. They refer to Antiochus and his death. When did the dead rise after his death?
What about Daniel 12:4 where Daniel is commanded to preserve everything in a book?
“But as for you, Daniel, conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time; many will go back and forth, and knowledge will increase.” Daniel 12:4
Oy vei! Again, so what? It doesn’t prove anything other than the real author used the first person.
What about the fact that Daniel 12 speaks of the dead resurrected to face judgement? It occurs after Antiochus’ death. This was a false prophecy!
Dear Everyone
Please, please, please stop with this incessant name calling and childish squabbling. Stand by your views with passion, but not to the extend of being uncivilised. This is hardly the behaviour of a religious community whose founder encouraged beautiful words and actions.
Hello Tobias. Welcome to the blog and thank you for your comments. You are certainly not the first to say this. While it is desirable to have civilized discussions, experience had taught me that it is impossible in 95% of all cases. I have no qualms against insulting someone who shows hostility to Islam and insults the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). I would rather there be calm and civilized discussions, but it’s not possible with trolls.
Thanks Tobias,
You are right.
Faiz (quranandbibleblog) does not know how to obey his own Qur’an, Surah 29:46.
“do not argue with the people of the book”; “only use good and beautiful ( احسن – Ahsanu, from hosn, hassan = good and beautiful) methods”
Whining like a little girl will not save you Kendra. Trolls like you deserve no sympathy, so stop trying to distract from your failures.
Someone who engages in reasonable debate with principles, arguments, without ad hominem, is not a troll.
unlike you, you cannot seem to avoid insults, name calling, and ad hominem.
There is nothing in your arguments that is “reasonable”. You just pick and choose like a typical Christian zombie.
You have failed to deal with the issues that disprove your religion and have tried to deflect to unrelated issues.
Ken, you are preaching without a real engaging of what’s been said.
You don’t respect our minds by doing that. And once you are cornered, you start vomit the garbage of David Wood & Sam. It’s the same tactic used by almost all christians who pretend to be respectful, but in the reality they are not.
I did engage the issue of Jesus as the lamb of God and defended that idea and atonement by blood sacrifice all through; and when the Muslims in the combox bring an objection, I engaged the issues. (Messianic Prophesy, Genesis 22, Isaiah 53, book of Daniel, etc.)
Obviously, if Christianity is true and the NT is the final revelation from God, then Islam is not a true religion or revelation and Muhammad was not a true prophet, though it seems he thought he was.
That is reason; if Christianity is true; then Islam is false.
That the Qur’an affirms the NT and previous Scriptures, 5:47 and 10:94 and other verses, was not invented by David Wood or Sam Shamoun. I knew that truth many years before they started their ministries in apologetics and debating.
I started before them and studied; (started in 1983) and lived among Muslims as friends. Though I never did those kinds of public debates, granted.
//That the Qur’an affirms the NT and previous Scriptures, 5:47 and 10:94 and other verses, was not invented by David Wood or Sam Shamoun. I knew that truth many years before they started their ministries in apologetics and debating.//
This is just a lie. Qur’an affirms the Torah and Injeel according to its definition of what the Torah and Injeel are. The source of Qur’an (i.e. Almighty Allah) knows very well what He had been reveled before. Qur’an has never talked about a “biblical canon” though I have no doubt that biblical canons reflect many things of that true message of Torah and Injeel which was (revealed to Jesus and Moses).
Moreover, the fact that Qur’an has its own definition of what the Torah and Injeel really are ( i.e. as revelations given to Moses and Jesus) is not restricted to the Quran, but also it’s found in the Bible. For example, we can read in the Bible that Moses gave the Israelites the Torah in (Deuteronomy 33:4) or as we can read in(Nehemiah 8:1). That torah is defiantly not the biblical canon of the jews today. The same thing can be said about the Injeel which has its own definition in the NT. Jesus was talking about a gospel according to his own understanding in (Matthew24:14). Also, even the christians’ prophet, Paul who kept crying and insisting to people that he’s a true disciple, had its own definition of what the gospel is. Paul even warned people to accept any gospel that had been preached by the (super-apostles) or even preached by the angels. In fact, Paul prayed against and cursed those super apostles who preached that different gospel.
(5:47) is talking about the past. Just read the next verse (48), but more important there’s no reason to think Injeel ≠ the biblical canon.
(10:94) is talking about the concept of the prophethood. Just read the second verse of the chapter, but more important this’s a rhetoric language used for emphasis.
Qur’an and the true message of Moses and Jesus all agree in this as the most important teaching, which is .“The Lord our God, the Lord is one.” However, your prophet Paul corrupted that statement, and you can read this corruption in your biblical canon today. It’s well proved ironically.
@ Abdullah1234
Let me begin by first giving a hand clap because you “get it”. Yes, the Bible is NOT the Torah and Gospel I don’t know why people keep trying to force it to be.
@ Ken
I wrote a post about this because I was tired of that being claimed (it also addresses all the other verses that are used). Please see the chart:
https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2019/02/24/corruption-of-the-scriptures-part-i-does-islam-confirm-the-bible-as-a-scripture-from-god/
Wow! Thank you for this amazing article.
Nehemiah was written in 430 BC and confirms the writing / Scripture of the Torah: “the book of the law” / “the book of the Torah” (8:3)
Surah 5:47-48 is not talking about the past, rather the first word is a command:
“judge” 3rd person imperative (command) – “Let the people of the gospel judge by what God has revealed therein . . .”
Since the “gospel” (Injeel) was already established for centuries before Muhammad; and all the Christian communities agree; and the Jews also about their written books, the words of Surah 5:47-48 and 10:94 had to have meaning for the people at that time. (time of speaking to the people of the book at the time of Muhammad and the Qur’an – 610-632 AD.
Here is what Irenaeus (wrote around 180-200 AD), one of the most important and earliest witnesses to Christianity in the second century, wrote about “gospel” and “the 4 fold gospels”:
“For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the “pillar and ground” of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh. From which fact, it is evident that the Word, the Artificer of all, He that sitteth upon the cherubim, and contains all things, He who was manifested to men, has given us the Gospel under four aspects, but bound together by one Spirit.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, 11, 8
So, “the gospel” is the same as the Biblical canon of the four gospels.
And it also includes all of the New Testament.
Ibn Kathir, in a famous commentary, spoke positively of the apostle Paul.
Al Suyuti did also. (Ibn Kathir’s commentary on the Qur’an, 8:178-179, on Surah 36:13-14. Bulus بلوس is the Arabic form of Paulos, since the Arabs don’t have “p”.
Also, Surah 7:157 says that the Christians and Jews have the written Scriptures with them at that time.
الَّذِينَ يَتَّبِعُونَ الرَّسُولَ النَّبِيَّ الْأُمِّيَّ الَّذِي يَجِدُونَهُ مَكْتُوبًا عِندَهُمْ فِي التَّوْرَاةِ وَالْإِنجِيلِ يَأْمُرُهُم بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَيَنْهَاهُمْ عَنِ الْمُنكَرِ وَيُحِلُّ لَهُمُ الطَّيِّبَاتِ وَيُحَرِّمُ عَلَيْهِمُ الْخَبَائِثَ وَيَضَعُ عَنْهُمْ إِصْرَهُمْ وَالْأَغْلَالَ الَّتِي كَانَتْ عَلَيْهِمْ ۚ فَالَّذِينَ آمَنُوا بِهِ وَعَزَّرُوهُ وَنَصَرُوهُ وَاتَّبَعُوا النُّورَ الَّذِي أُنزِلَ مَعَهُ ۙ أُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْمُفْلِحُونَ – 7:157
what they find written with them in the Torah and the Gospel
يَجِدُونَهُ مَكْتُوبًا عِندَهُمْ فِي التَّوْرَاةِ وَالْإِنجِيلِ
مکتوباً (MaKtuban) means “written” and same root of Kitab = book.
I see that there’re a lot of misreading and misconception on your part, Ken. Don’t take this personally because this ignorance covers most christian apologetics I know.
The point about (Deuteronomy 33:4) &( Nehemiah 8:1) is that the Torah which was revealed to Moses is not the biblical canon. It’s just not the case. I challenge you to prove that book which was given to that gathering is the biblical canon that you know today. Throughout the bible we see that people need the prophets of Allah to revive the true message of Torah as we read in (Jeremiah 8:8). Therefore, the Qur’anic definition for the Torah and Injeel is indeed not restricted in Qur’an, but also it’s found i your bible. Subsequently, Torah and Injeel ≠ your biblical canon. In the same time we can say that any biblical canon – not necessarily yours- may contain some truth of that true message of Torah and Injeel.
(Surah 5:47) is talking about the past. Read it with its own context which begins from the verse (44). This has been said by Imam Al-Tabri & Ibn Kathir. The imperative here is called (Iltifat) in Arabic in which the narrator ( i.e. Allah sw, the One who tells us this story) brings the attention of the listeners to that time where the command was given. For example, (Surah 34:13), Allah عز وجل is telling us about David and Solomon in the past, yet in verse 13 the imperative came. «They made for him what he willed of elevated chambers, statues, bowls like reservoirs, and stationary kettles. [We said], “Work, O family of David, in gratitude.” And few of My servants are grateful», and as you may see the translator put the implicit time in brackets [We said]. In sum, Allah sw is telling us that in each era, He sends books and messengers, and He had been commanding people to work based on His commandments in each time. That’s it! And that’s why the next verse is telling us that prophet pbuh is given the book so that he judge (between people now) according to it.
Moreover, even if that verse is talking about the time of the prophet pbuh, that would not be a problem because and again the torah and Injeel is already defined by Qur’an. If we are going to talk about an establishment, then it’s indeed the establishment which has been done by Qur’an. In fact, Qur’an is very clear about this matter in the same chapter(surah 5:15-16)
«O People of the Scripture, there has come to you Our Messenger making clear to you much of what you used to conceal of the Scripture and overlooking much. There has come to you from Allah a light and a clear Book.By which Allah guides those who pursue His pleasure to the ways of peace and brings them out from darknesses into the light, by His permission, and guides them to a straight path.»
What you need to know, Ken and other christians is that you have to allow for history to speak. You cannot judge Qur’an based on your imagination which tells you that christians were walking around with the King James Bible for each! Or that the people of the book were monolithic. This is not history, rather it’s a wishful thinking. In fact, this is attested even in the bible (Gal 1:7) “which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ”, so there were people from very beginning who had a diffident view of Paul, yet they believed in Jesus. Paul though they (distorted) the gospel of Jesus. Qur’an has the same view in the sense that the gospel of Jesus got corrupted with some people, yet it the source of Qur’an (i.e.Allah sw) is all knowing of what He had revealed to Jesus whether the other side agrees or not. Also, there’s nothing impossible historically that the message of Injeel survived with some christians in (written/oral) forms. That’s why Qur’an emphasizes on the scholars among the people of the book not the laymen among them.
«And has it not been a sign to them that it is recognized by the scholars of the Children of Israel?» QT 26:197.
Some christians got described in Qur’an even «And when they hear what has been revealed to the Messenger, you see their eyes overflowing with tears because of what they have recognized of the truth. They say, “Our Lord, we have believed, so register us among the witnesses.» QT 5:83.
Also, the prophetﷺ described the situation on the earth before his prophethood as the following :
“Allah looked towards the people of the world and He showed hatred for the Arabs and the non-Arabs, but with the exception of some ((remnants)) from the People of the Book” Sahih Muslim.
As for (Surah 7:157), there’s not been an issue with it, and I think it’s talking about the time of the prophet ﷺ. However, you have to bear in your mind what has been said before. According to that verse, I’m just curius why would a christians priest such as the Waraqah ibn Nawfal wait for another prophet who brings a new law with him? What’s kind of knowledge he had?
Finally, you said //Ibn Kathir, in a famous commentary, spoke positively of the apostle Paul.//
This is just a misreading for ibn kathir. Christians in general cannot read the Islamic book because these books are gigantic and polyvalent! Christians are very wrong when they think they are so smart to read these great books just like that.
Ibn Kathir was reporting not approving! Some interpreters say these messengers in surah 36 were the disciples of Jesus whose names X, Y, & Z! However, Ibn Kathir himself refused this saying because those are prophets of Allah, and in the same Tafseer he mentioned 3 reasons why those messengers are not the disciples of Jesus. But even if Ibn Kathir praised Paul because he thought he was one of the disciples, that would not affect our position! He simply was wrong about this point! Especially that we know that the teacher of Ibn Kathir, Ibn Tayymiah stated clearly that Paul corrupted the message of Jesus. In fact, many muslim scholars mentioned this even before In Taymmiah such Al-Qurtobi, Al-Baghawai, and Ibn Hazm, May Allah have mercy on them all. Muslim scholars were aware of this divison among the early christians before the modern academic studies 1000 years ago!
Dear Everyone
In the immortal words of St Issac the Syrian, of holy and ever blessed memory, “Conquer men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of justice to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men”
May the grace of the Lord God and the prayers of Our Blessed Lady St Mary be with everyone involved with this blog.
Dear Mr Faiz
Speaking as a Traditionalist Eastern Catholic and an attendee of an SSPX parish, I have no malice towards your Prophet or your faith. My personal stance on Mohammed is one of polite indifference. I do not see him as some sort of evil sabre wielding ghoul of the desert, but nor can i see him as the ultimate prophet of God and the most perfect human being ever to have existed. It is not my place to say horrible things about everyone. Muslim conquerors allowed my brothers in the Orthodox Church be left in peace in their mountain Churches and Monasteries to worship in peace. That is all we want.
God and St Mary Be with you
Hi Tobias. Thank you for your comment. To be certain, I was not accusing you of any malice towards Islam. I was, however, talking about the majority of Christians who engage in religious discussions, who routinely demonize Islam, including some people on this blog. When such people engage in such attacks, no one should be surprised when Muslims respond in kind. I also frankly hate it when well-meaning Christians speak out only when they see Muslims responding to the demonization of their religion but say nothing when they see their own brethren engaging in such behavior (again, not that I am accusing you of that).
Thank you also for your comment about how Muslims have traditionally treated your people. But commenters like Kenny routinely accuse Muslims of forcing Islam on Christians! So perhaps you can correct him and tell him to stop peddling that ridiculous polemic.
I think if we want to see any change in Muslim-Christian relations, people like you need to participate more. I have no problems with people like yourself, and as I said before, I would rather there be respectful and civilized discussions, but as long as most Christians engage in offensive discussions, there will be a response in kind from Muslims.
As-Salam alaikum.
Dear Mr Faiz
I could not agree more. While i respect my Protestant cousins I do not entirely agree with many of their methods. Mr Shamoun, while in many ways a gifted biblical expositor, does not approach certain situations quite as one would wish. We must all learn to turn the other cheek and remember that justice and recompense belongs to God and his Holy Saints, not to mere mortals attempting to follow in their blessed footsteps. As an example of respectful and polite Christian Muslim I would highly recommend the ‘Apology for Christianity’ by Patriarch Timothy the First.
God and St Mary be with you
@Stewjo004
In your article:
Corruption of the Scriptures: Part I – Does Islam Confirm the Bible As a Scripture from God?
You quoted Surah 7:157 –
“Who follow the Messenger, the illiterate prophet they find described in the Torah that is with them, and in the Gospel…”[12]
The Arabic is more accurate than “described” – the word is actually “written” (Maktuban – مکتوباً ) and we also have these words in Farsi, from Arabic words, مکتوب Maktub means written, and it comes from Kitab کتاب (book).
الَّذِينَ يَتَّبِعُونَ الرَّسُولَ النَّبِيَّ الْأُمِّيَّ الَّذِي يَجِدُونَهُ مَكْتُوبًا عِندَهُمْ فِي التَّوْرَاةِ وَالْإِنجِيلِ يَأْمُرُهُم بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَيَنْهَاهُمْ عَنِ الْمُنكَرِ وَيُحِلُّ لَهُمُ الطَّيِّبَاتِ وَيُحَرِّمُ عَلَيْهِمُ الْخَبَائِثَ وَيَضَعُ عَنْهُمْ إِصْرَهُمْ وَالْأَغْلَالَ الَّتِي كَانَتْ عَلَيْهِمْ ۚ فَالَّذِينَ آمَنُوا بِهِ وَعَزَّرُوهُ وَنَصَرُوهُ وَاتَّبَعُوا النُّورَ الَّذِي أُنزِلَ مَعَهُ ۙ أُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْمُفْلِحُونَ – 7:157
يَجِدُونَهُ مَكْتُوبًا عِندَهُمْ فِي التَّوْرَاةِ وَالْإِنجِيلِ
they find written with them in the Torah and the Gospel
“Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in the Torah and the Gospel, . . . ”
That is at the time of the prophet Muhammad, and the revealing of the Qur’an, between 610-632 AD.
It is obvious that the author of the Qur’an thought at the time the Christians and Jews had their written Scriptures, and were the same as what was revealed to Moses, Jesus, and Davood (the Zabur) and he thought that those very Scriptures described and wrote about Muhammad. (but they didn’t mention Muhammad at all)
The point here is not to get into Deut. 18, John 14, 16 or Song of Songs 5:16, rather the point is that the Qur’an sincerely thinks the Scriptures of the Jews and Christians exist at that time and are the same as when they were first revealed to Moses and Jesus.
@ Ken
Regardless if “Written” or “described” is more accurate is irrelevant. The context is God talking to Moses(as) after the Children of Israel worshipped the Calf and it has NOTHING to do with nowadays (or even the time of the Prophet(saw)). The argument is born from lack of reading comprehension (really all of these are). Simply read the context:
“Moses chose from his people seventy men for their meeting with Me when a violent earthquake seized them. Moses said: “Oh Lord, if You had wanted you would’ve destroyed them way before this as well as me. Are you destroying us because of what the idiots among us did? This is nothing but Your test and through it, You mislead and You guide whomever you want! You are our Protective Friend so forgive us and show us mercy and never allow us to fall into it again because You are the best of those who can forgive! And write good for us in this life as well as the Next because we have lovingly and with full loyalty turned back to you!” I responded: “I target with My punishment whoever I wish and My Mercy extends to everything. I will give My Mercy to those who are God-fearing, purifying themselves by giving what is due in charity and truly believes in My revelations. Who follow the Messenger, the illiterate prophet they find written in the Torah that is with them, and in the Gospel. He will order them to what is good and forbid to them what is evil. And make allowed for them things that are pure, forbid to them all the things that are filthy and he will take off from them the chains and burdens around their necks that used to be on them. Those who will believe in him, obey him out of respect and help him, following the light sent down with him and they are the successful ones.…” So now tell them: “People! I am the Messenger of God for you all, sent by the One who owns the kingdom of the heavens and the earth! No one is to be worshipped or obeyed but He. He gives life and He gives death, so believe in God and His Messenger, the prophet which can neither read nor write, who believes in God and His words, and follows them closely, so that you can be considered committed to guidance.…”
As can be clearly clean it was a half quote that is a clear distortion of the Quran. There’s no point in responding to the judge by the gospel part as I never said that.
As for Ibn Kathir, your references appear to be misquoted. Surah Anfal (8) is only 75 verses long and when I checked in regards to 36:13-14 the reference is absent:
http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1491
However, EVEN IF Ibn Kathir(rh) or Suyuti(rh) said this that means nothing nor is it binding. These scholars are from the Middle Ages and they cannot look up references like we can nowadays because they did not have the resources (like the Internet) we have available nor was the world as connected. If you read enough commentary you will read ALL sorts of things, for example, Ibn Kathir thought Arius believed like Muslims and we know this is incorrect. Paul is not mentioned in Islamic text and we have no reason to believe or disbelieve in him.
In regards to Irenaeus last, I checked he was 150 years after the events so his testimony means nothing. There was a variety of text claiming to be the Gospel in the 1st century of the Christian Era. I personally favor the real Gospel was some sort of Aramaic Oral recitation like the Quran and was composed of parables but God knows best. As for the textual chain of Torah you are aware the Jews have lost it several times right? Even the text of the Hebrew Bible confirms this:
“Transmission break #1 – Sometime between Moses (approx. 1300 BCE) and King Josiah (approx. 600 BCE)
Hilkiah the high priest discovers the lost Torah:
Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the secretary, “I have found the Book of the Law in the temple of the Lord.” He gave it to Shaphan, who read it. [2 Kings 22:8]
King Josiah tears his clothes when he learns of this:
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law, he tore his robes. [2 Kings 22:11]
Now this is the key point. After reading the Torah, they proceed to remove all aspects of idolatry and the occult:
Furthermore, Josiah got rid of the mediums and spiritists, the household gods, the idols and all the other detestable things seen in Judah and Jerusalem. This he did to fulfil the requirements of the law written in the book that Hilkiah the priest had discovered in the temple of the Lord. [2 Kings 23:24]
Now, if the Torah had never been lost, then they would have all known about the prohibition on idolatry in Deuteronomy 12:2. Clearly, they had not seen the Torah in a very long time.”
http://www.manyprophetsonemessage.com/2014/05/14/the-corruption-of-the-torah/
The Bible is not what God gave to Moses(as) on Mount Sinai plain and simple.
Fantastic rebuttal!
The Ibn Kathir reference is not to Surah 8, but rather to Surah 36:13-14 to the 3 persons mentioned. I don’t know if 8, means “volume 8” or “chapter 8” of his commentary or some other work that he wrote. Maybe that is a mistake of the footnote it is in.
I will respond to more later. At least you are reasonable in your methods of argumentation.
As for Surah 7:157, the context does not help you, because it says, “the unlettered prophet (Muhammad) whom they will find written in the Torah and the Gospel that is with them” =
الَّذِينَ يَتَّبِعُونَ الرَّسُولَ النَّبِيَّ الْأُمِّيَّ الَّذِي يَجِدُونَهُ مَكْتُوبًا عِندَهُمْ فِي التَّوْرَاةِ وَالْإِنجِيلِ يَأْمُرُهُم بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَيَنْهَاهُمْ عَنِ الْمُنكَرِ وَيُحِلُّ لَهُمُ الطَّيِّبَاتِ وَيُحَرِّمُ عَلَيْهِمُ الْخَبَائِثَ وَيَضَعُ عَنْهُمْ إِصْرَهُمْ وَالْأَغْلَالَ الَّتِي كَانَتْ عَلَيْهِمْ ۚ فَالَّذِينَ آمَنُوا بِهِ وَعَزَّرُوهُ وَنَصَرُوهُ وَاتَّبَعُوا النُّورَ الَّذِي أُنزِلَ مَعَهُ ۙ أُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْمُفْلِحُونَ – 7:157
مَكْتُوبًا عِندَهُمْ فِي التَّوْرَاةِ وَالْإِنجِيلِ
written with them in the Torah and the Gospel
It is clear that at the time of Muhammad, he considered the Christians and Jews had written Scripture “with them” at that time, and sincerely thought that they predicted / prophesied of the coming of Muhammad.
I don’t see how you can escape this reality at all.
You cannot just dismiss Irenaeus, when he and Tertullian quote from most every book of the New Testament and affirm all the earlier texts of the NT. Since the Bible we have today agrees with what they all wrote about and the manuscript tradition (while taking into account the few textual variants that don’t affect major doctrine, since other portions teach the doctrines, etc.).
It still stands that “Gospel” means the message of the NT and there is one Gospel, unified by the Spirit, in a four-fold testimony. “Four aspects” or “four-fold” testimony of the one gospel.
Nothing you have said has refuted the fact that the Qur’an understands and believes that at the time, the Christians and Jews had the written Scriptures from God. (the Qur’an accusses them of Ta’areef Al Ma’ana تعریف المعنی (changing the meaning with their tongues – orally), not “Ta’areef Al Naas تعریف النص (changing the text)
And present to them an example: the people of the city, when the messengers came to it –
When We sent to them two but they denied them, so We strengthened them with a third, and they said, “Indeed, we are messengers to you.”
Surah 36:13-14
the commentaries by Muslims say one of the 3 messengers is the Apostle Paul.
بولس = Bulos, = Paulos = Paul
“I have found the Book of the Law in the temple of the Lord.” He gave it to Shaphan, who read it. [2 Kings 22:8]
Obviously, they found a written copy of it in a back room or closet or in a cabinet in a wall, covered by other things (something like that) – it had been neglected; but the text was still there!
The written copy of it was found!
The text was not lost, nor ceased to exist!
The commentary of Ibn Kathir at 36:13-14 is right:
(so We reinforced them with a third,) means, `We supported and strengthened them with a third Messenger. ‘ Ibn Jurayj narrated from Wahb bin Sulayman, from Shu`ayb Al-Jaba’i, “The names of the first two Messengers were Sham`un and Yuhanna, and the name of the third was Bulus, and the city was Antioch (Antakiyah).
“sham’un” = Sham’oun = Simon = Peter
Yuhanna = John
Bulus = Paul (the Arabs don’t have “p”)
Both Peter and Paul have lots of background to the city of Antioch.
These are 3 of the main followers of Jesus who wrote most of the New Testament!!
The Ibn Kathir reference is an example of the deceitful cherry-picking that some Christians engage in. By doing so, James White has shown his true colors, and by blindly and uncritically accepting White’s arguement, Ken has shown his lack of objectivity, Let’s look at Ibn Kathir’s FULL reference shall we?
“In the reports that he transmitted from Ibn `Abbas, Ka`b Al-Ahbar and Wahb bin Munabbih – Ibn Ishaq reported that it was the city of Antioch, in which there was a king called Antiochus the son of Antiochus the son of Antiochus, who used to worship idols. Allah sent to him three Messengers, whose names were Sadiq, Saduq and Shalum, and he disbelieved in them. It was also narrated from Buraydah bin Al-Husayb, `Ikrimah, Qatadah and Az-Zuhri that it was Antioch. Some of the Imams were not sure that it was Antioch, as we shall see below after telling the rest of the story, if Allah wills.
(so We reinforced them with a third,) means, `We supported and strengthened them with a third Messenger. ‘ Ibn Jurayj narrated from Wahb bin Sulayman, from Shu`ayb Al-Jaba’i, “The names of the first two Messengers were Sham`un and Yuhanna, and the name of the third was Bulus, and the city was Antioch (Antakiyah).
(Verily, we have been sent to you as Messengers.) meaning, `from your Lord Who created you and Who commands you to worship Him Alone with no partners or associates.’ This was the view of Abu Al-`Aliyah. Qatadah bin Di`amah claimed that they were messengers of the Messiah, peace be upon him, sent to the people of Antioch.
[…]
We have already referred to the reports from many of the Salaf that this city was Antioch, and that these three Messengers were messengers sent from the Messiah `Isa bin Maryam, peace be upon him, as Qatadah and others stated. This is not mentioned by any of the later scholars of Tafsir besides him, and this issue must be examined from a number of angles. (The first) is that if we take this story at face value, it indicates that these men were Messengers from Allah, may He be glorified, not from the Messiah, peace be upon him…
[…]
(The second) is that the people of Antioch did believe in the messengers sent by the Messiah to them. Antioch was the first city to believe in the Messiah, and it is one of the four cities in which there are Christian patriarchs. These cities are: Jerusalem, because it is the city of the Messiah; Antioch, because it was the first city where all of the people believed in the Messiah; Alexandria, because it was in that city that they agreed to reform the hierarchy of patriarchs, metropolitans (archbishops), bishops, priests, deacons and monks; and Rome, because it is the city of the Emperor Constantine who supported and helped to establish their religion. When he adopted Constantinople as his city, the Patriarch of Rome moved there, as has been mentioned by several historian, such as Sa`id bin Batriq and others, both People of the Book and Muslims. If we accept that, then the people of Antioch were the first to believe, but Allah tells us that the people of this town rejected His Messengers and that He destroyed them with one Sayhah and lo! they (all) were still. And Allah knows best. (The third) is that the story of Antioch and the Disciples of the Messiah happened after the Tawrah had been revealed. Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri, may Allah be pleased with him, and others among the Salaf stated that after revealing the Tawrah, Allah, may He be blessed and exalted, did not destroy an entire nation by sending a punishment upon them. Rather, He commanded the believers to fight the idolators.”
http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1491
So as we can see, there was no certainty among the scholars about what city was referred to and which messengers. The names of the messengers are also a matter of disagreement. The bottom-line is that there is no evidence that Paul was one of those messengers. This is simply one of the several views, and which is frankly absurd. Also, it’s possible that it was some other person named Paul (assuming that the messengers were sent during the time of Jesus, which is not certain at all).
Stewjo004
Wrote:
The green parts are what are being referred to in the Qur’an. What Jews and Christians are in possession of and use today are in brown.
You are just assuming that without proving it. the problem is the verses in the Qur’an that are written sometime between 610-632 or Uthman’s recension, (died in 656 AD )
These anonymous Frankenstein books used nowadays are not what Muslims believe in nor what God revealed to mankind.
Again, you are avoiding the historical facts that we have copies of our books, both OT and NT centuries before Muhammad and they were the same thing at the time of Muhammad and the same thing today. (with some textual variants that we are all open about, like ending of Mark 16, etc.)
The Qur’an speaks at the time to the books that had “between their hands” Bein Yadieh بین یدیه
We also have these Arabic words in Farsi and I recognize them – “bein” بین means “between” and ید “yad” means “hand”
To begin you’re Persian? I always thought you were a middle age white man from Wyoming. Huh, you learn something new every day.
Anyways, did you just say Moses’s/Jesus’s revelations and sayings/actions are an assumption on my part? You’re so busy trying to rebuttal you’re not listening to the point being made which is why you’re all over the place. If you believe Jesus or Moses were real historical personalities and/or receiving revelations from God these green parts exist and those are what are being referred to in the Qur’an. All your “manuscript tradition” does is bring you to “original Hebrew Bible”. Even if you had the real writings tomorrow you’d still be a LONG way from the Taurat and Injeel and the manuscript tradition means absolutely nothing quite frankly.
I am not Persian, but lived among Persians and learned their language for many years. (not in Iran, but in other countries, as Iranians have been fleeing Iran since 1979.) They are leaving Islam also, and they have become Christians in many other countries all over the world.
I meant you just assume that the “frankenstein books” or brown parts are not a faithful transmission of the original. It is all built upon liberal scholars theories of redaction and form criticism.
@ Ken
Yeah, their also becoming atheist that doesn’t make atheism truth either. Iran is full of Rafidah and scholars have differed if it was better for them to become Christians because then the number of gods they have turns from 12 to 3 and they turn from disbelievers to people of the Scripture, (note I favor this opinion as well).
Anyways, back to the discussion, I think both references are misquoted because Paul isn’t mentioned in 36:13-14 either:
http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1491
And thank you I think you argue relatively reasonable as well. I’ll wait for the rest of your post.
You are right, many Iranians were becoming atheists and agnostic and just secular, and some are becoming new Agers, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.
The government force of Sharia law (the Shiite version is not much different than Sunni versions) has turned them off to all religion.
Ken, if what you say is true, then why are so many Christians leaving your religion? Why is it estimated that 100 MILLION (that’s 100,000,000) Christians will apostatize by 2050? Why is it that Islam will actually see a modest growth from conversions? Get your facts straight, Ken.
https://www.pewforum.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2015/04/PF_15.04.02_ProjectionsOverview_religiousSwitching_640px.png
https://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/
“projected”, “estimated” – that is not a good nor scientific argument.
Islam grows mostly by biological growth (Muslims have more children, and some have more wives.)
I respect those that are moral and believe in marriage and family and have more than 2 children.
Not polygamy though.
So, there is no way to know if the Pew research is accurate anyway.
//Not polygamy though.//
It’s found in the bible. Your culture is irrelevant here.
It was not God’s first ideal. At creation, there is just Adam and Eve. One man and one woman. Jesus quoted from Genesis 1 and 2 and said, “the two will become one”. Matthew 19:4-6
The jealousy and rivalry and problems that polygamy caused Jacob in Genesis chapters 29-30 and what happened to Solomon in 1 Kings 11 should be clear to anyone who reads with honestly.
God allows sin to happen; and by recording man’s sins in the Scripture, God gives us examples of what not to do; lessons that are guidance and light.
You notice that polygamy not being ideal doesn’t mean it is a sin. Can you see the difference?
Moreover, you cannot say it’s not the ideal choice because it really depends on many factors. Sometimes polygamy is the ideal choice to avoid sin.
The point here is that polygamy is not a sin, and it’s permitted in your bible. On the other hand, your western culture is really not the standard for humanity to follow, and you should not use it as such.
Here’s the opinion of the founder of your sect
https://bloggingtheology2.com/2019/02/19/the-christian-leader-who-inspired-the-protestant-reformation-his-views-on-polygyny/
““projected”, “estimated” – that is not a good nor scientific argument.
Islam grows mostly by biological growth (Muslims have more children, and some have more wives.)
I respect those that are moral and believe in marriage and family and have more than 2 children.
Not polygamy though.
So, there is no way to know if the Pew research is accurate anyway.”
What a biased statement! Apparently, you don’t understand how projections work. They are based on CURRENT trends. Of course no one knows if current trends will stay that way.
It is perfectly acceptable to make estimations based on current data. Scientists do that all the time. How do you think they track population growth?
The rest of your statement is a strawman. I never said Islam was growing only because of conversions. I said Islam will see MODEST growth because of conversions. In contrast, if current trends hold, Christianity will lose ~40 million adherents. We are already seeing this in places like England, where the “NONES” are rapidly approaching the majority.
The reference to “3 messengers” in Surah 36:13-14. I don’t know what the 8:178-179 means. “chapter 8” or “volume 8” or “paragraph 8” or what.
It is from a footnote in James White’s book, “What Every Christian Needs to Know about the Qur’an”, page 190, footnote # 7.
If he got that wrong, I am surprised another Muslim has not caught that earlier. Meanwhile, other Muslims also mention “Bulos” as one of the faithful messengers and followers of Jesus in commentaries.
Sorry didn’t see your other post. “Context” ALWAYS helps lol. “(Muhammad)” is not in the Arabic text. The translator is simply confused. The context is God talking to Moses after the Calf incident and “that is with them” is referring to the Jews of Moses’s time. There is no way for it not to be as can be clearly seen from the context. This argument is born out of a lack of reading comprehension from the opposing side plain and simple.
Moving on, the NT is DEFINITELY not the Gospel. Jesus was not reading Corinthians, Romans, Timothy, Acts etc when he preached the Gospel to the people (Mark 1:14) Irenaeus and Tertullian are over 100 years AFTER Jesus’s ascension. Let me put it in perspective, this would be the equivalent of someone using my or your testimony about something that was written in WW1 (and this is assuming they wrote the moment they were born). My theory is the parables of Jesus(as) are the actual revelations he received from God (i.e. the real Gospel). Then early Christian sects framed various tales around the parables for whatever false doctrines they wanted to teach (and of course made up a few along the way.)
Finally, multiple Sahaba state that its alteration of the text. For what logical reason should Muslims reject the understanding of people who were there when the Qur’an was revealed for a biased missionary opinion?
P.S. please don’t use Arabic, I find it very condescending as you have never even heard of these terms and they are saying them as if its new information to me.
@ Ken
Also, the Rafidah do not enforce Shariah and they are as different as night and day I can’t believe anyone could claim to know about Islamic law and could say this.
Next, the Bible is a collection of various books and writings (i.e a Frankenstein). Many of these books are debated in various Church’s canon. And even among the “Agreed canon” you have 4 different versions of the Hebrew Bible (DSS, LXX, Masoretic and Samaritan) ALL of these can’t be right. Someone made changes to the text for various reasons and the Jews admit to this. Read the blue:
https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2018/04/21/missing-books-in-the-bible/
While the NT is composed of many different writings as well. Using the “official position” of the Church ALL of it stems from Paul or his students barring two and the few glimpses we have outside their tradition is a radically different religion.
So the brown is not an assumption and is pretty much agreed upon scholarship. Mark, Matt, Luke, and John had to compile their material from somewhere.
Persians / Iranians were all Sunnis until the 1500s – a decree by the Safavid kings made them Shiite.
All six collectors of the standard / canonical Hadith collections – all six men were ethnically Persians!
Interesting!
Al Bukhari – was from the city of Bukhara (today in Uzbekistan, but ethnically a Tajik / Persian area).
“Rafidah” is a derogatory term meaning “rejectors” about the Shiites, who rejected the first 3 Caliphs that Sunnis put forth – Abu Bakr, Omar, Uthman.
But the Sharia law is basically the same in both Shiite and Sunni applications.
The only differences are minor things such as the Caliphs and applications of building and visiting shrines to the family of Muhammad – Fatimeh, Ali, Hassan, Hossein, etc. (shrines to the Imam-zadeh ha (12 Imams and their children, all over Iraq and one in Iran) – visiting the shrines and graves – that is one of the big differences; but besides that, and their own Hadith collections, the applications of Sharia law are basically the same things.
@ Ken
Lol, I know the history of the Rafidah (which is not how they got their name btw not all Shia are Rafidah). And no they don’t, Rafidah do not use a variety of things such as Qiyas(Analogy) and Ijtihad (consensus of the Companions) along with many others. Certain sects like the Zaidis are similar to the main body of Muslims but the closest thing they are like is a jacked up Mu’tazilah, I mean it’s almost mind-boggling what you’re saying right now.
P.S. please don’t use Arabic, I find it very condescending as you have never even heard of these terms and they are saying them as if its new information to me.
“you have never even heard of these terms”
?? !!
You are wrong about that –
But I have heard of them, as Farsi / Persian is made up today of 40 % Arabic roots. I recognize the meanings of most all religious terminology and much of everyday speech among Iranians has lots of Arabic words and roots in them, although they pronounce words differently and don’t have the same rules of some of the grammatical endings when joining with other words. Farsi does not have the Al ال definite article. But sometimes the Arabic Al stays even in Farsi, for example, “the Holy Spirit” روح القدس (Ruh ol-Qodos)
کلمت الله
= Kalamat Allah (word of God = Jesus)
from
کلمه الله
they just change the ه ending with two dots over it to a t / ت
Since I know so many of these words, I can recognize them when in the Qur’an and Hadith, etc.
granted, the grammatical structure of phrase and sentence structure is different; but most of the main important words are recognizable.
@stewjo and @ken temple
As a Persian Shia, I can tell both of you don’t know what you are talking about when it comes to Iran..
Yes Iran enforces Sharia.. the interpretation of the Jafari school of thought in Islamic law
We do not believe in 12 gods.. the Wahhabi/Salafi school of thought is too narrow minded to understand the concept of Tawassul and Ziyaarah. But that is a whole other debate. I won’t get into that here. I dont want this to become a Shia vs Sunni debate.. let’s focus on the topic.
SOME, not all, Iranians have left Iran, not because of the enforcing of Sharia upon the people, but more so because of the corruption of the ruling clerical elite. The massive amounts of money in the bank accounts of the mullahs, as well as the stifling of freedoms, in order to keep the ruling elite in power (sounds like the Catholic Church back in the middle ages) is the main catalyst for why some Iranians have turned away from Islam.. When the ruling elite is using Islam as a tool for power and dictatorship, subconsciously people will be steered away from the very thing that the ruling elite uses as its tool, the religion of Islam. So Ken, do not make it sound like it is Islam that is causing Iranians to leave it.. no.. it is the corruption of the Mullah elite and the theory of the guardianship of the jurist that is causing the revolt against religion in Iran.
oops sorry i meant SOME, not all, Iranians have left ISLAM (not iran)
I agree, SOME, not all Iranians have left Islam.
But it is more like “many” and “a lot”; especially among the educated and middle and upper classes.
Why don’t you give your name, or something more relevant to your name and /or preferences?
Thank you for your comment! And you have some good points.
I am also apprehensive in getting involved in intersectarian arguments. Most Shias are faithful Muslims, even though they practice certain things which are wrong from the Sunni perspective. I think it is best to leave our differences for Allah (swt) to sort out, and instead promote Islamic unity. Of course, this wouldn’t apply to some Shia sects such as the Alawites, who are clearly deviants.
@ QB
Yeah no. The Rafidah are only a step down from the Alawites. People talk about “Islamic Unity” but there’s no logical reason, why?
1. They are bigger kuffar then the Christians or Jews. And their beliefs are enough to expel them from Islam. I guess we should have “united” with the apostates during the Ridda wars.
2. They are a tiny minority so there no good in that department
3. We have never united with deviants and the Sahaba kept harsh stances against such people.
4. Allah has NEVER legislated to leave things for Allah to decide among Muslims this is how kufr and deviation spreads.
5. The Rafidah have backstabbed the Muslims whenever they had the chance.
Thanks, @Ken stop speaking for Iranians:
Yes Iran enforces Sharia.. the interpretation of the Jafari school of thought in Islamic law
I agree; so I was right about that. Thanks for confirming what I wrote.
We do not believe in 12 gods..
I agree there also. I never accused Shia of that anyway.
the Wahhabi/Salafi school of thought is too narrow minded to understand the concept of Tawassul and Ziyaarah. But that is a whole other debate. I won’t get into that here. I dont want this to become a Shia vs Sunni debate.. let’s focus on the topic.
Tawassul = Sufism
Ziyaarah = زیارت = visiting graves and shrines and showing respect for past leaders.
I mentioned that also. So I know what I am talking about.
SOME, not all, Iranians have left Iran [your corrected yourself, some Iranians have left Islam] , not because of the enforcing of Sharia upon the people, but more so because of the corruption of the ruling clerical elite. The massive amounts of money in the bank accounts of the mullahs, as well as the stifling of freedoms, in order to keep the ruling elite in power (sounds like the Catholic Church back in the middle ages) is the main catalyst for why some Iranians have turned away from Islam.. When the ruling elite is using Islam as a tool for power and dictatorship, subconsciously people will be steered away from the very thing that the ruling elite uses as its tool, the religion of Islam.
Ok, what you say is mostly true and I know that, from the perspective of an Iranian who does not associate the government with the proper application of Sharia law from the Jafari school of Islamic law.
The problem is, some, maybe most of the middle class and upper class in the big cities of the Iranian people associate the corruption and harsh rules, stifling of freedom, etc. with Islam itself.
So Ken, do not make it sound like it is Islam that is causing Iranians to leave it.. no.. it is the corruption of the Mullah elite and the theory of the guardianship of the jurist that is causing the revolt against religion in Iran.
Ah yes, “the guardianship of the jurist” = ولایت فقیه
Khomeini’s claim that only the Islamic jurist leaders can protect the application of Sharia law in society = the Islamic scholars are the rulers over all the other leaders. “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” John Acton’s famous statement in the context of the Papal claim to infallibility.
Yes, you are right; but it difficult to separate the power of the State from the religion itself. Just like the power of Caliphate in early Islam – they had the power to make war, execute people, enforce laws, attack other Empires for centuries, and claim leadership, and also Uthman ordered all the fragments and copies of the Qur’an collected and he made one standard text and burnt all the rest.
It is in the Hadith of Al Bukhari – a Persian. Is it in the Shia Hadith collections, what Uthman did?
Tawassul = توسل – to resort to, to connect with, to appeal to, to use means وسیله و وسایل of approaching God – practically, visiting graves and shrines and asking dead saints for their intercession in order to get closer to God.
@ Ken stop speaking for the Iranians
I know what I said the first time, Imam Jafar(rh) was a righteous scholar who did not believe in the kufr that the Rafidah believe in. The Mullah ARE the leaders of the Rafidah since the beginning and that is why laymen such as yourself are excused but the Muallah are unanimously considered kuffar. If you didn’t want to turn this into the paganism of rafidh discussion you shouldn’t have commented.
If you believe in “Wilayah Takwini” you really believe in 12 gods as its shirk Ar Roobeyah. And the Imams will deny you on Qiyamah like Isa(as) will deny the Christians. The reasons Christina are able to convert Rafidah is because its essentially the same beliefs at the core.
In Sahih Al Bukhari, a Persian.
Is this in the Shia collections of Hadith?
Sahih Al-Bukhari, 6.507, 509-510:
(The Caliph ‘Uthman ordered Zaid bin Thabit, Said bin Al-As, ‘Abdullah bin Az-Zubair and ‘Abdur-Rahman bin Al-Harith bin Hisham to write the Qur’an in the form of a book (Mushafs) and said to them, “In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit (Al-Ansari) regarding any dialectic Arabic utterance of the Quran, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, for the Qur’an was revealed in this dialect.” So they did it.
Abu Bakr As-Siddiq sent for me when the people of Yamama had been killed (i.e., a number of the Prophet’s Companions who fought against Musailama). (I went to him) and found ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab sitting with him. Abu Bakr then said (to me), “Umar has come to me and said: ‘Casualties were heavy among the Qurra’ of the Qur’an (i.e. those who knew the Quran by heart) on the day of the Battle of Yalmama, and I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place among the Qurra’ on other battlefields, whereby a large part of the Qur’an may be lost. Therefore I suggest, you (Abu Bakr) order that the Qur’an be collected.” I said to ‘Umar, “How can you do something which Allah’s Apostle did not do?” ‘Umar said, “By Allah, that is a good project.” ‘Umar kept on urging me to accept his proposal till Allah opened my chest for it and I began to realize the good in the idea which ‘Umar had realized.” Then Abu Bakr said (to me). ‘You are a wise young man and we do not have any suspicion about you, and you used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah’s Apostle. So you should search for (the fragmentary scripts of) the Qur’an and collect it in one book).” By Allah If they had ordered me to shift one of the mountains, it would not have been heavier for me than this ordering me to collect the Qur’an. Then I said to Abu Bakr, “How will you do something which Allah’s Apostle did not do?” Abu Bakr replied, “By Allah, it is a good project.” Abu Bakr kept on urging me to accept his idea until Allah opened my chest for what He had opened the chests of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. So I started looking for the Qur’an and collecting it from (what was written on) palmed stalks, thin white stones and also from the men who knew it by heart, till I found the last Verse of Surat At-Tauba (Repentance) with Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari, and I did not find it with anybody other than him. The Verse is:
“Verily there has come unto you an Apostle (Muhammad) from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty…(till the end of Surat-Baraa’ (At-Tauba). (9.128-129) Then the complete manuscripts (copy) of the Qur’an remained with Abu Bakr till he died, then with ‘Umar till the end of his life, and then with Hafsa, the daughter of ‘Umar.
Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur’an, so he said to ‘Uthman, “O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Qur’an) as Jews and the Christians did before.” So ‘Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, “Send us the manuscripts of the Qur’an so that we may compile the Qur’anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you.” Hafsa sent it to ‘Uthman. ‘Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, ‘Abdullah bin AzZubair, Said bin Al-As and ‘Abdur-Rahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. ‘Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, “In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur’an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur’an was revealed in their tongue.” They did so, and when they had
written many copies, ‘Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. ‘Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur’anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. Said bin Thabit added, “A Verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Qur’an and I used to hear Allah’s Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari. (That Verse was): ‘Among the Believers are men who have been true in their covenant with Allah.’ ” (33.23)
DSS, LXX, Masoretic and Samaritan) ALL of these can’t be right.
There is not much difference between the first 3. Dead Sea Scrolls, Lxx, and Masoretic Hebrew text are all very close. Especially the Masoretic text with the Dead Sea Scrolls. the DSS confirmed the Hebrew Bible.
The Samaritan Penteteuch is only the Torah, and that is a very small group.
So, you don’t make a very substantial point.
Same for NT textual tradition.
We are open and honest about the few textual variants. None of them affect major doctrines, since the doctrine is repeated in other verses.
For example, Mark 16:1-8 has the empty tomb; but the two big Uncial texts don’t have verses 9-20; but all the important information in Mark 16:9-20 is repeated in Matthew 28, Luke 24, and Acts chapter 1.
So, the lack of verses 9-20 does not affect major doctrine, like the resurrection of Jesus; and also because the empty tomb is there and true. 16:1-8
Read Dr. White’s book, the King James Only Controversy, and see how the tenacity of the text and honesty about the textual tradition holds up.
@ Ken
There are bigger differences between the 4 versions than that. I just posted 2 links of an article dedicated to issues of the Hebrew Bible and the Jews saying they changed the Torah for a variety of reasons. Even for the variants when one compares them you can see reasons for the alteration.
http://www.manyprophetsonemessage.com/2014/05/14/the-corruption-of-the-torah/
The Jews themselves say the lost parts of the Torah so you’re saying that the people whom you trusted to preserve the Book are wrong?
https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2018/04/21/missing-books-in-the-bible/
You don’t even have an agreed-upon canon among all the churches is that all from Holy Spirit as well Ken?
The discussions on this thread, while interesting, have gone off track. Let us not forget what has been demonstrated thus far:
1. The failure of Christianity to explain the fate of countless people who lived the coming of Jesus (pbuh).
2. The failure of “God” to apply the blood atonement doctrine to the vast majority of human history.
3. Since Ken brought up Daniel…the lack of evidence for ascribing authorship to Daniel, and,
4. The false prophecy in Daniel 12 which stated that the dead would rise to face judgement after the death of Antiochus IV.
Besides that, Kenny has also been refuted on his cut and paste appeal to Ibn Kathir and the alleged reference to Paul (which was unrelated to this topic anyway). He has also failed to prove that the Quran affirms the Bible (again, another unrelated topic).
@ QB
You’re right the conversation has got off topic (cough* polgYNY is beautiful when done correctly and no one cares about Roman culture affecting God’s laws cough*)
Anyways the sacrifice issue still stands and the plot hole in alleged “salvation” is enough to refute the doctrine.
A good refutation of the ridiculous argument about Paul being one of the “messengers” in Surah Ya Seen:
http://mustafa-apologist.blogspot.com/2017/08/is-paul-prophet-according-to-quran.html
@ QB
Excellent article by the brother. One add on I think he should have delved into more is there is no proof in the text that the “sent ones” were even sent by Isa(as) and this is basically an assumption by mufasiroon. The city is not named. The sent ones are not named. The name the believing man is not named. So where is the evidence for any of this? People have a hard time grasping that sometimes a muffassir can be incorrect and may hear a rumor and think the Quran is reffering to it (a good example is Alexander the Great being Dhul Qarnain). One muffassir makes a connection and other ones then copy him. I just don’t see a parrallel for this story in Christianity and as Ibn Kathir said these people were destroyed.