Book Review: Reading Backwards: Figural Christology and the Fourfold Gospel Witness by Richard B. Hays


Another book I recently read is this rather beautifully written work by Richard B. Hays
an American New Testament scholar and Professor of New Testament at Duke Divinity School in North Carolina. He is also an ordained minister in the United Methodist Church.

He addresses a question that I have pondered over for many years: the gospels and the letters of Paul claim that the events of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection took place ‘according to the Scriptures’, namely that the Torah, Prophets and Psalms mysteriously speak of the Christ who was to come in Jesus.

Hays’ discussion is based on a series of lectures delivered at Cambridge University in 2014 and now combined in this single work. So his intended audience is academic rather than the man in the street.

In a sense the book can be seen as a sustained commentary on Jesus’ words in John 5:46

If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.

Hays asks some profound questions on p 93:

‘What could John the Evangelist mean by advancing such an audacious claim? In what sense can Moses be said to have written about Jesus? And what would it mean for us to believe that such an assertion might be true? What sort of hermeneutical landscape might open before us if we learned to read Israel’s Scripture not only through the filtering lenses of modern critical methods but also through the eyes of John and the other authors of the canonical Gospels?’

The key to an answer is Hays’s model of “figural reading.” Hays offers examples of how the New Testament teaches us to read the Old Testament. Hays states that, “The Gospels teach us to read the OT for figuration” (p. 15). He contends that “the Gospel writers summon us to a conversion of the imagination,” and that “we will learn to read Scripture rightly only if our minds and imaginations are opened by seeing the scriptural text . . . through the Evangelists’ eyes” (p. 4). For Hays ‘figuration’ is not the same as prediction. Recognizing figuration is always a retrospective exercise, “the discernment of unexpected patterns of correspondence between earlier and later events or persons within a continuous temporal stream” (p. 93).

Here is the crucial substance of Hays argument:

A figural christological reading of the OT is possible only retrospectively in light of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection. Thus, from the perspective of figural interpretation [the central contention of Hays’ book], it would be a hermeneutical blunder to read the Law and the Prophets as deliberately predicting events in the life of Jesus. But in light of the unfolding story of Jesus, it is both right and illuminating to read backwards and to discover in the Law and the Prophets an unexpected foreshadowing of the later story.

Reading Backwards: Figural Christology and the Fourfold Gospel Witness by Richard B. Hays, p. 94.

I purchased this book from Amazon with a mind open to the possibility that there was after all a convincing scholarly solution to the problem I had stumbled across long ago, namely: that on a historical and contextual reading (ie without Christian presuppositions) no one would have read the texts the gospels cite, allude to, or echo as pointers to the promised Messiah, let alone as pointing to a future person who would embody Israel’s God. A well known example is Hosea 11:1 as cited in Matthew 2:15.

Do I find Hays’ scholarly arguments persuasive? I have to honestly report that No, I do not. Look again at Jesus’ words in John 5:46:

If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.

Moses actually wrote about Jesus! This is the claim that John places on the lips of Jesus. But where is the evidence in Moses? Where does he plainly write of the One who is to come, the Incarnation of Israel’s God? Where does Moses mention Jesus’ life, death and resurrection? Nowhere that I can see. Exegesis does not give us the NT faith. But eisegesis definitely does! Eisegesis, as a wag once put it, is pronounced “I see Jesus”.

Definition: ‘Eisegesis is the process of interpreting text in such a way as to introduce one’s own presuppositions, agendas or biases. It is commonly referred to as reading into the text.’ source

If the eisegesis as practiced by the NT writers is a true and acceptable hermeneutic then Christianity is true in its claims to be the fulfillment of Israel’s scriptures. Contrary to Hays, the NT does indeed claim that the OT predicts in advance its conceptualisation of the Messiah Jesus. But in reality, the NT only succeeds by reading its Christology and soteriology into the Hebrew Bible. Many people will find this procedure morally unacceptable and unpersuasive. Jews have for most of the past 2000 years protested against this figural reading of their Scriptures. I am inclined to sympathise with them.

IMG_3219

Themelios has an interesting review by a fellow evangelical scholar



Categories: Christianity, Jesus, New Testament scholarship, Recommended reading

104 replies

  1. Welcome back Paul,

    Thank you for this review, it provides me a useful glimpse on the current NT scholarships.

    “Contrary to Hays, the NT does indeed claim that the OT predicts in advance its conceptualisation of the Messiah Jesus. But in reality, the NT only succeeds by reading its Christology and soteriology into the Hebrew Bible.”

    I have the same observation, If we remove Iseejesus and properly employ true hermeneutics to the Hebrew Bible, we will never arrive the conceptualisation of Messiah Jesus beyond a human leader and liberator for the jewish people. Fascinatingly I don’t find this to be in any conflict with his messiahship as conceptualised in the Qur’an.

    Liked by 3 people

    • “Welcome back Paul”

      I am glad Paul is back on the website. Without him, it would have been corrupted by Faiz / QB and his awful character. I am glad that some balance has been restored . . .

      Does that mean that Paul Williams came back to Islam, or he is just a “free monotheist” kind of secularist who can write articles against the Bible and Christianity and use liberal scholarship, etc. and let Muslims also use his knowledge of liberal western stuff, but actually not be a Muslim and just have to put up with all the hypocrisy, lack of speaking against evil at Speaker’s corner (more, when the coronavirus stuff levels off – if there are restrictions, etc. – I have not checked on how England is applying outdoor events), and other mean crap (and who knows what else that keeps bothering him about most Muslims he knows and spends time with eventually hurt him – his days with the MDI, etc., things behind the scenes, etc.) that he has been getting from them?

      and (one of the other reasons he admitted for leaving Islam a few years ago) the lack of power to do all the extreme disciplines of Ramadan during daylight hours? (no water either – a ridiculous extreme ascetic practice and rule of a burden on the souls of Muslims that proves it was not from the true God)

      38 Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, 39 and through Him everyone who believes is freed (or justified) from all things, from which you could not be freed (or justified) through the Law of Moses

      Acts 13:38-39

      Moses’ fast even from water for 40 days in Exodus 34:28-29 was a miraculous fast and never instituted as a law to burden other regular people.

      Saul of Tarsus in Acts 9:9 went 3 days after his conversion with no food or water, but it was never given as a law-rule to go without water for a Biblical way of fasting.

      Liked by 1 person

      • @ Ken

        “(no water either – a ridiculous extreme ascetic practice and rule of a burden on the souls of Muslims that proves it was not from the true God)”

        Then proceeds to show a prophet and one of your holy men doing the exact same fast.

        I have a question Ken are you seriously this stupid or are you just trolling? Like it’s impossible to me you haven’t drowned eating spaghetti yet with some of the stuff you say. You are basically missing lunch, that’s it. Just because you have no food discipline (as can be seen by your weight) and fill your stomach with your desires don’t try to project to others.

        Even the Jews fast the same way. (Again common sense Jews would fast the same way its described in their text) so YOU are the oddball in this equation and are trying to hide your shortcomings by claiming the Bible says something it doesn’t.

        Not being insulting, but Paul is an older man and if he has health problems (or it causes health problems) then he’s exempt as the Quran states and is scholarly consensus. So you once again you show you don’t know what you’re talking about (while ironically ignoring your religions extreme asceticism)

        PS
        1. There is nothing in the text to state this is a miracle so you’ve once again lied.

        “Moses was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant–the Ten Commandments.”
        https://biblehub.com/exodus/34-28.htm

        That’s it. The second part says his face shined from speaking to God not fasting.

        2. Saul wasn’t even fasting so this is your second lie (and IF he was THIS is extreme fasting to go continuous)

        8Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could not see a thing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. 9For three days he was without sight, and he did not eat or drink anything.

        https://biblehub.com/acts/9-9.htm

        I mean how sick your heart is, I really am fearful for you.

        Liked by 1 person

      • The 40 day fast of both food and water had to be a miracle through Moses, because there is nothing about, ok, at sundown you can drink water. (like in Islam) No human being has gone that long without water also. So it was a miracle.

        Like

      • @ Ken

        If all the Jews fast like us there’s no reason to think this wasn’t the case here. You are stretching the evidence to try and make yourself feel better about your lack of discipline and lip service to God.

        Like

      • The Jewish understanding is that the Torah itself only commands one day of fasting a year. And it’ is in their tradition from sundown to sundown. Not from sunset to sundown. So both similar and different at the same time.

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ Benedictus

        I thought they had a variety? ( Although I could be wrong as I’ve never directly asked and only observed)

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ta%27anit

        Like

      • Yes, but Taanit is Rabbinically instituted and are governed by different regulations.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Ken

        My reasons for no longer calling myself a Muslim I will keep to myself. I am not going to fall into the trap of going public and giving ammunition to missionaries. That would be utterly repellant to me.

        I was outed by a Muslim on this blog who betrayed a confidence. I did not intend to go public. I will have to live with that now.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Thanks for that explanation.

        Liked by 1 person

      • But I would agree with Ken that the cases of Moses, Saul and Jesus is a different category snd context.

        On the other hand i would disagree that Ramadan fasting should somehow be seen as a sign of evil, when in fact it is a sign of piety, even if you don’t believe in Islam.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Ok, but it (Ramadan 30 days) is an extreme that few can do with no water during day – the 30 days is long; and no water from sun-up to sundown is extreme.

        But fasting from food for 1-3 days is a good discipline from time to time, in order to seek God and spend time in Bible study and prayer, is a good and Biblical disciple.

        When you fast . . . etc. Matthew 6
        and
        Matthew 9:14
        Acts 13:1-4
        Ezra chapter 9

        Seems like an extreme rule to put on people, and seems to not be from God.

        Whereas the Biblical fasts make sense.
        (see above)

        The best book on that is John Piper’s “A Hunger for God”

        when I was young and skinny, I was better at it. I gained 1-2 pounds per year, after getting married. But have recently lost 47 pounds, so feeling good.

        It is very admirable if Muslims can actually do the fasting properly with all the rules and also got go overboard at night.

        I have many Muslims, both Arabs and Iranians who have admitted they over-eat at night during Ramadan and sleep during the day, and sometimes sneak into the Frig or get water when no one is looking. Many have admitted it is hard and they fail after a few days.

        Also, we lived in a Muslim country for 3 years and it was amazing how the men swarmed the kebab shops at sundown and were rushing and stuffing and chowing down on the kebabs – (we also could not get a taxi – they even pointed to their mouths and a head they were heading for the Kebab shop to chow down.) they did not seem to be doing it right – a gentle slow drinking water, and a hot tea with a date, etc. They were really shoveling it in. I can understand that, as it seemed like a legalistic rule/ law of works (one of the 5 pillars of works/ deeds) that is too difficult to follow through with all the way. I am not saying some Muslims don’t accomplish the goal of going through all 30 days of Ramadan and avoid eating and drinking water during the day and avoid sex and cigarettes also – one of my neighbors complained – we can’t smoke, we cannot even drink water, and then he looked around to make sure no one was around – we cannot have “you know” with our wives, etc. We are bored during the day. it is also very commendable if they can eat lightly and moderately during the evening and the breakfast before the sun comes up. But it seems extremely legalistic –

        Like

      • Sorry, fasting. That was an evil typo! My apologies.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Sorry I make typos:

        It is very admirable if Muslims can actually do the fasting properly with all the rules and also not go overboard at night.

        I have met many Muslims, both Arabs and Iranians who have admitted they overeat at night during Ramadan and sleep during the day, and sometimes sneak into the Frig or get water when no one is looking. Many have admitted it is hard and they fail after a few days.

        But some do it right and complete it, without overeating in the evenings, and still maintain good attitudes during the day and go to work, etc., that is commendable. But it did seem that it was sort of like a 30 day holiday – work schedules and work loads were lessened and shortened during these times.

        Like

      • I corrected it for you.

        Like

      • @ Benefictus

        And I don’t believe fasting was evil in the Bible either. My point was this isn’t something we just made up and went to the extreme with (for example like I said if it physically harmed someone they’re exempt) THe problem with Temple is he just shotguns things hoping to have “seeds of doubt2” land in the back of people’s minds and it’s annoying.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Thanks so much Paul!

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ Ken

        Lol, see how you are trying to clean u because you know you’re spouting BS. It’s “impossible” and “legalistic” hmm… that’s interesting. Now I normally don’t brag about my deeds but I seem to be able to do it every year for almost 10 years straight. Actually, I was at one point able to do fast every alternating day and just stopped due to it being a hardship in my marriage. Why is that Ken do I have some sort of magical powers?

        Liked by 2 people

      • To be honest br. @stejo004, I thought only Satan would attack this wonderful deed of fasting as if “it is not from God”.

        Fasting is part of obedience because it has always been designed to direct attention to God. One way the people of God would afflict their soul was through depriving themselves of the necessities they needed such as food, water, and physical comfort to contemplate their lives, their sinful and unrepentant hearts, and turn to Him in submission to receive God’s forgiveness (Maghfiroh). I also dont brag about my deeds but I am always looking forward for fasting in Ramadan and also since I was in mid 30s I started to fast every Monday and Thursday according to the Sunnah of the holy prophet. It is always a wonderful experience and feel like getting closer to God.

        Liked by 2 people

      • A lot of things some Christian / non-muslim don’t understand about fasting in Ramadan and they make a stupid comment

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ Eric

        Exactly, again certain people obviously its hard (for example the elderly or sick) and they are excused so how is that “extreme asceticism” when they’ve been excused?

        It’s like what you said, I’m literally 2 days into Ramadan and already as I was breaking fast thought about how ungrateful I am just for food. it tastes better and I realize how I do stupid excessive things like fixing snacks for no reason (which I’m going to try and cut)

        The problem is I think they think we’re b.s. ing when we say we pray 5 times a day, fast etc. It really is this ayah come to life:

        5:59. Ask them: “Ahem, People of the Scripture, do you hate us for any reason other than the fact that we’ve believed in God and what has been sent down to us and before us, while most of you are disobedient to Him?”

        PS
        I forgot to mention how silly his “no water” comment was when Dr. Mercola (non-Muslim btw) had made the whole craze of “intermittent fasting” (fasting two days out the week”)and he straight up said he got it from Prophet Muhammad (saw)

        @ 8:30 (about 8:00 for the full context of him trying different fasts)

        One of the new Muslims who is a health nut showed it to me. So ironically while some people double down in their evil (like Ken) others increase in faith.

        Like

  2. @ Paul

    You received a like for the clever wordplay you cheeky son of a gun.

    But yeah “I see Jesus” is quite simply ridiculous as Christians would never allow this for say, Muhammad(saw)

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Moses wrote this, since Moses wrote the book of Genesis also, along with the law in Exodus – Deuteronomy; which was God’s promise to Abraham, after he was tested and obeyed, by being willing to give up / sacrifice his only unique son:

    “And through your offspring, all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me.” (Genesis 22:18).

    Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his own son (Genesis 22:2, 12) is a prophetic foreshadowing of God the Father’s willingness to give His only unique Son. (John 3:16)

    The substitution of the innocent animal is also a prophetic foreshadowing of the substitutionary death of the Messiah, which even the Qur’an agrees with the ransom / substitution aspect of it (Surah 37:107), even though it also tries to deny the principle (Surah 22:37)

    This promise to Abraham and his seed was a further development from:

    Genesis 3:15 – the seed of woman that would crush the serpent’s head (defeat Satan)

    Genesis 12:3
    Genesis 22:18 (above)
    Genesis 26:4
    Genesis 28:14
    Genesis 49:10 – the one who comes from the seed of Judah will be the king (Messiah), who has a scepter of righteous rulership (just King) and will belong “the obedience of the peoples / nations” – that Gentiles nations will come to know the true God through the Messiah.

    Galatians 3:6-8 and 3:16 shows the ultimate fulfillment is in the Messiah, Jesus Christ.

    Deuteronomy 18:15, 18 – the prophet is the same as the Messiah – which Acts 3:22-25 proves, written around 62 AD – long before Islam came 600 years late.

    That the word “Messiah” is not mentioned in these passages is ok, just as NONE of the passages that the Jews today claim is about the Messiah have the word Messiah in them.

    But 2 of the main ones Christians have are Psalm 2:1-12 – both Messiah and Son of God are there. And Daniel 9:24-27 – the Messiah will come, be cut off, then the re-built 2nd temple will be destroyed ( 70 AD)

    Paul Williams claimed a few months ago that Isaiah 52-53 is not about the Messiah just because the word Messiah is not used there. (quoting Christopher Tucker)

    Muslims, Jewish people, and even some liberal scholars claim that Isaiah 52:13-15 and 53:1-12 is not about the Messiah just because the word Messiah is not used there.

    Biblical Passages Referring to the Mashiach (according to modern Jews – the word Messiah is not there)

    The following passages in the Jewish scriptures are the ones that Jews consider to be messianic in nature or relating to the end of days. These are the ones that we [Jews for Judaism] rely upon in developing our messianic concept:

    Isaiah 2, 11, 42; 59:20
    Jeremiah 23, 30, 33; 48:47; 49:39
    Ezekiel 38:16
    Hosea 3:4-3:5
    Micah 4
    Zephaniah 3:9
    Zechariah 14:9
    Daniel 10:14
    If you want to know how Jews interpret the passages that Christians consider to be messianic, see Jews for Judaism, a counter-missionary organization not associated with this website, especially their article about Christian Proof-Texting.”

    My (Ken) Response:

    Mark says “the Son of Man must suffer” (Mark 8:31) (see also Mark 9:31 – they will kill him”; Mark 10:33-34

    33 saying, “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered to the chief priests and the scribes; and they will condemn Him to death and will hand Him over to the Gentiles. 34 They will mock Him and spit on Him, and scourge Him and kill Him, and three days later He will rise again.”

    What OT (Tanakh) texts do Jews today consider to be Messianic?

    Again: (But notice Isaiah 11 – a key Messianic text – verse 1 speaks of the root and branch of Jesse – David’s father and uses a word that is probably what Matthew 2:23 is referring to. (see extensive documentation here.)

    So, “Nazareth” describes Jesus being rejected by the Jews. Isaiah 14:19 – “like a rejected branch” = כְּנֵצֶר נִתְעָב כ = like נצר = NZR, Nazer, branch נתעב = rejected, despised Isaiah 11:1 – “then a shoot will spring from the stem of Jesse (father of David); and a branch (Nazer – נצר ) from his roots will bear fruit.” (see rest of Isaiah 11:1-10 – a very Messianic passage in the Jews minds. This is referred to in Acts 13:22-23; and Isaiah 11:10 is quoted in Romans 15:12)

    The following passages in the Jewish scriptures are the ones that Jews consider to be messianic in nature or relating to the end of days. These are the ones that we rely upon in developing our messianic concept:

    Isaiah 2, 11, 42; 59:20
    Jeremiah 23, 30, 33; 48:47; 49:39
    Ezekiel 38:16
    Hosea 3:4-3:5
    Micah 4
    Zephaniah 3:9
    Zechariah 14:9
    Daniel 10:14

    Me: NONE of them have the word “Messiah” in them.

    From:
    http://www.jewfaq.org/mashiach.htm

    Like

    • Hebrews 11:17 calls Isaac Abraham’s “monogenes” son (only unique, one of a kind, the old translations say “only begotten).

      Since Ishmael was also a son of Abraham, but not the one whom the covenant promise was to come through (Genesis chapter 16; 17:19-21), in that sense Isaac is the “only son”, the unique one, the monogenes – the word used of Jesus in John 3:16; John 1:14; John 1:18; John 3:18, 1 John 4:9.

      Like

      • @ Ken

        Play with words all day that is not the meaning of “only son” or in Hebrew “walad” (Only son through your loins, i.e begotten) Jewish commentators like Rambam and Rashi notice the issue but not apparently your non-Semitic language speaking self.

        Liked by 3 people

      • The Torah refutes you on this. When God gives the covenant to Abraham (as) in Genesis 17:2-4, it was the Circumcision בְּרִית מִילָה‎  brit millah,  the act which was to be the SEAL of the covenant (Gen. 17:9-14).

        Gen 17:10, we read:
        זֹ֣את בְּרִיתִ֞י אֲשֶׁ֣ר תִּשְׁמְר֗וּ בֵּינִי֙ וּבֵ֣ינֵיכֶ֔ם וּבֵ֥יןזַרְעֲךָ֖ אַחֲרֶ֑יךָ הִמּ֥וֹל לָכֶ֖ם כָּל־זָכָֽר
        This is My covenant, which ye shall keep, between Me and you and thy seed (heb, zera זֶרַע) after thee: every male among you shall be circumcised.

        Here God mandated Abraham to perform the first Circumcision and subsequently to his seed  zera‘ זֶרַע. 

        Who were  the first zera‘ of Abraham (as) to perform this seal of covenant (Circumcision) along with him?  at that time ONLY Ishmael (as) was alive as Isaac (as) was not even born. At that time Ishmael (as) was Abraham ONLY son!

        Later Genesis continues in: 17 25-26
        וְאַ֨בְרָהָ֔ם בֶּן־תִּשְׁעִ֥ים וָתֵ֖שַׁע שָׁנָ֑ה בְּהִמֹּל֖וֹ בְּשַׂ֥רעָרְלָתֽוֹ׃
        25 And Abraham was ninety years old and nine, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.
        וְיִשְׁמָעֵ֣אל בְּנ֔וֹ בֶּן־שְׁלֹ֥שׁ עֶשְׂרֵ֖ה שָׁנָ֑ה בְּהִ֨מֹּל֔וֹאֵ֖ת בְּשַׂ֥ר עָרְלָתֽוֹ׃
        26 And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.

        So here it was Ishmael (as) who did the first brit millah along with Abraham (as) …and Isaac (as) were circumcised next year after he was born and 8 days old. Both Ishmael and Isaac were sons of covenant (ben ha brit). However it is clear that the covenant promise was to come through Ishmael (as) first and he was the ONLY son of Abraham (as) when the covenant was sealed !

        Liked by 1 person

  4. Also the Passover Lamb was about Jesus.

    Exodus 12

    John 1:29

    1 Corinthians 5:7

    Moses wrote Exodus, so Moses wrote about Jesus the future Messiah.

    Isaiah 53 continued that trajectory in prophecy.

    Like

    • @ Ken

      Isaiah 53 has nothing to do with Jesus(as) its about exiled Israel and this obvious from simply reading the text

      https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2020/04/05/the-crucifiction-series-part-3-what-the-prophets-of-old-foretold/

      Furthermore, none of this is Moses(as) writing about Jesus(as). This is laughable “commentary” that Christian came u with that anyone can do for anybody to make the text say whatever they want.

      Liked by 2 people

      • on the play on words of “eisegesis” word and “I see Jesus” :

        εισεγησις

        from 2 Greek words, eis = into, egesis = “to lead” from ago / αγω

        It is pure coincidence that the sounds in English sound like the Greek pronunciation of that term.

        The Scriptures say that Jesus Himself, in His incarnation, “exegeted” (explained fully, the opposite of eisegesis – the opposite of reading into (eis) the text, it brings out from (ex / from ek, “out of” ) the text properly. “to lead out from”, “to explain fully”. – John 1:18, result of John 1:1-17 – the incarnation explains God the Father.

        ἐξηγήσατο
        John 1:18
        from
        ἐξηγέομαι
        “to lead out from”, “to fully explain”.

        12 Therefore having such a hope, we use great boldness in our speech, 13 and are not like Moses, who used to put a veil over his face so that the sons of Israel would not look intently at the end of what was fading away.

        14 But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ. 15 But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart; 16 but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 18 But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.

        Therefore, since we have this ministry, as we received mercy, we do not lose heart, 2 but we have renounced the things hidden because of shame, not walking in craftiness or adulterating the word of God, but by the manifestation of truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. 3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5 For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your bond-servants for Jesus’ sake. 6 For God, who said, “Light shall shine out of darkness,” is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.

        2 Corinthians 3:12 to 4:6

        A veil lies over the Jews hearts who reject Jesus as Messiah and over your hearts for rejecting Him as all the NT says He is.

        But there is hope if you repent and turn to Him. (see verses 3:16-17 and 4:5-6)

        Like

      • “It is pure coincidence that the sounds in English sound like the Greek pronunciation of that term.”

        I see it as intentional Divine humour.

        John 5:46: ‘If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.’

        Can you give me an example from the words of Moses that speaks clearly of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection.

        Thank you.

        Like

      • @ Paul

        I guess we can conclude Ken doesn’t know what a “pun” is.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. There are many problems with the claim that Isaiah 52:13-15 through 53:1-12 “has nothing to do with Jesus”.

    The main problem with the Islamic claim here, is that you are using later Jewish interpretations which are reactions to the fact that 2nd temple Judaism was destroyed in 70 AD and further decimated in 135 AD at the Bar Kokhba rebellion when some Jews came back militarily to fight the pagan Romans who had destroyed the temple and they were led by a guy who many Jews claimed to be Messiah (Simon Bar Kokhba), because he was doing militarily what they were expecting Jesus to do earlier, but Jesus was crucified.

    The Bar Kokhba revolt (Hebrew: מֶרֶד בַּר כּוֹכְבָא; Mered Bar Kokhba) was a rebellion of the Jews of the Roman province of Judea, led by Simon bar Kokhba, against the Roman Empire. Fought circa 132–136 CE,[4] it was the last of three major Jewish–Roman wars, so it is also known as The Third Jewish–Roman War or The Third Jewish Revolt. Some historians also refer to it as the Second Revolt[5] of Judea, not counting the Kitos War (115–117 CE), which had only marginally been fought in Judea.

    So, the earlier interpretation of Isaiah 52:13 (My servant) to Isaiah 53:12 (verse 11 – My servant will justify the many”, verse 12 – He bore the sin of many”, etc.)

    Jesus the Messiah Himself said He is that servant!!

    Mark 10:45
    Matthew 20:28
    Mark 14:24
    Matthew 26:28
    Luke 22:19-20
    Luke 24:25-27; 24:32; 24:39; 24:44-49 (it was necessary for the Messiah to suffer, die, rise from the dead and be preached to all the nations and this was all from the OT – Moses and the prophets, the Torah, the Psalms and the Prophets. (v. 44)

    Every line from Isaiah 52:13 to 53:12 is either directly quoted or alluded to in the rest of the various 27 books of the New Testament, the true Injeel.

    The NT is the proper interpretation of what the TaNaKh was prophesying about. (Torah, Nabi’im (prophets) and Khetovim (holy writings, wisdom literature, Psalms, poetic books, some historical books).

    Islam, by calling Jesus “the Messiah” Al Masih المسیح , unknowingly confirms this, and Rejects the Rabbinical interpretations of trying to deny that Isaiah 53 is about the Messiah. Islam also unknowingly confirms this by also confirming that the previous Scriptures are God’s word, sent down by God, guidance and light, and were still with the Jews and the Christians at the time of Muhammad – ie, they were NOT corrupted.

    Another of David Wood’s recent videos confirms this – the logic and reason and argumentation simply destroys Islam and proves that it is wrong, and that the NT is the proper Jewish interpretation of the TaNaKh.

    He demonstrates decisively why Surah 2:79 does not show that the Injeel nor the Torah was corrupted at the time of Muhammad.

    So, your article on “Crucifixion 3 – the prophets” is completely demolished.

    Also, Islam even says that the view of the NT Jews, the writers of the NT, the disciples of Jesus and their helpers (like Luke for Paul, Barnabas, Silas (possible writers of Hebrews), Mark for Peter, etc.) – they were believers and full of integrity and became the uppermost and dominant and obvious / manifest ones. (Surah 3:54-55 and 61:14)

    Like

    • “Islam also unknowingly confirms this by also confirming that the previous Scriptures are God’s word, sent down by God, guidance and light, and were still with the Jews and the Christians at the time of Muhammad – ie, they were NOT corrupted.”

      The Qur’an disagrees with David, who does not know Arabic:

      ‘And We caused Jesus, the son of Mary, to follow in the footsteps of those [earlier prophets], confirming the truth of whatever there still remained of the Torah; and We vouchsafed unto him the Gospel, wherein there was guidance and light, confirming the truth of whatever there still remained of the Torah, and as a guidance and admonition unto the God-conscious.’

      ‘Let, then, the followers of the Gospel judge in accordance with what God has revealed therein: for they who do not judge in the light of what God has bestowed from on high – it is they, they who are truly iniquitous!’

      ‘And unto thee [O Prophet] have We vouchsafed this divine writ, setting forth the truth, confirming the truth of whatever there still remains of earlier revelations and determining what is true therein. Judge, then, between the followers of earlier revelation in accordance with what God has bestowed from on high, and do not follow their errant views, forsaking the truth that has come unto thee.’

      Quran 5:47-48

      Like

      • Those verses actually agree with my position (and Woods) on the previous Scriptures. “what God has revealed therein” means in the Gospel, which at the time (between their hands/ with them = at the time, no complete corruption of the text or the main message of the NT (the true Injeel).

        Like

      • On John 5:46:
        I already showed you the verses and the trajectory in the books of Genesis and Exodus that led to the trajectory of Isaiah 52-52 – that Messiah would be like a sacrificial lamb and pay for the sins of the world – a guilt offering, bearing our sin, etc. – fulfillment of all the OT sacrificial system.

        The words of Jesus are true and historical in John 5:46.

        On exegesis and “I see Jesus”
        I see it as intentional Divine humour.

        That may be true. If true, and if my view, the early 1st century Jewish / disciples of Jesus view, then it is really intensional and true; and humorously funny rebuke to Islamic anachronistic and inconsistent way of trying to explain itself and its own contradictions.

        Like

      • @Ken

        “Islam, by calling Jesus “the Messiah” Al Masih المسیح , unknowingly confirms this, and Rejects the Rabbinical interpretations of trying to deny that Isaiah 53 is about the Messiah”

        No it doesn’t you idiot the two things aren’t even related. He(as) can be the Messiah and never once touch isaiah 53.

        Oh and it’s funny you brought up David Wood lol you kow he hass to become a Muslim right? My answer to his challenge that you can send back to your human devil:

        Challenge: Where does Allah state unequivocally their text is corrupted? Yawn:

        “God had taken a Covenant from the Children of Israel… But they broke their promise, so I cursed them and made their hearts hard. They changed the words from their original places and have forgotten a large portion of what they were told repeatedly to remember, so you will continue to find treachery against you or cheats from a few of them. Overlook this and forgive them because God loves those who excel in doing good. I had also took a Covenant from those who say: “We’re Christians,” but they too forgot part of what they were told to remember. So I released animosity and hatred among themselves until the Day of Judgement, when God will tell them what they used to manufacture. People of the Scripture! My Messenger has come to you; clarifying what you used to keep hidden of the Scripture and who overlooks much (overlooks much means of what you changed) (5:12-15)

        Just so there’s no debate here every translation ever:

        https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/5/13/

        https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/5/14/

        Jalalayn:

        “… they pervert words, pertaining to the descriptions of Muhammad (s) in the Torah and other things, from their contexts, those in which God has placed them, in other words, they substitute them; and they have forgotten, they have abandoned, a portion, a part, of what they were reminded of, [of what] they were enjoined to in the Torah…) We made a covenant, just as We did with the Children of Israel, the Jews, and they have forgotten a portion of that they were reminded of, in the Gospel, pertaining to faith and other matters, and they [too] broke the covenant…O People of the Scripture, Jews and Christians, now there has come to you Our Messenger, Muhammad (s), making clear to you much of what you used to conceal of the Scripture, the Torah and the Gospel, such as the ‘stoning’ verse and the description [of the Prophet Muhammad (s)], and pardoning much, of it, which he does not reveal, since this would not be of any benefit, serving only to disgrace you.”

        Ibn Kathir:
        (So because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them…) Allah states, because of their breaking the promise that We took from them, We cursed them, deviated them away from the truth, and expelled them from guidance,

        (They change the words from their (right) places…) Since their comprehension became corrupt, they behaved treacherously with Allah’s Ayat, altering His Book from its apparent meanings which He sent down, and distorting its indications. They attributed to Allah what He did not say, and we seek refuge with Allah from such behavior.

        (O People of the Scripture! Now has come to you Our Messenger explaining to you much of that which you used to hide from the Scripture and passing over much.) So the Prophet explained where they altered, distorted, changed and lied about Allah. He also ignored much of what they changed, since it would not bring about any benefit if it was explained.

        http://m.qtafsir.com/Surah-Al-Maeda/Explaining-the-Truth-Through-t—

        This is the problem: your guy’s foundation is weak because you (like you do with the Bible) just say what you think a text means as opposed to actually studying and interpreting properly. Fear God ken and become a Muslim or a horrible fate awaits you.

        Like

      • @ Ken

        Your writers are the anachronistic ones which is why you ignored my point that calling oneself the Son of God in Judaism is not blasphemy. This is why your heart, eyes and ears are sealed because you refuse to acknowledge when you or the Biblical text is wrong.

        Like

      • Yeah, the guy who translated this is a master of Arabic. He literally invented a new Arabic Quran with this translation, cuz those words are not in there. The fact you have to give false translation shows that you can’t even argue properly for your pow.

        Like

      • Yawn…not unequivocal just like D. said, just means they said the meaning was something else like in 4:46 and 5:41. Not the written text.

        Like

      • @ Jimmy

        Oh i love when someone tries to call me out when they don’t know what they’re talking about (oh this is exciting!!!) Actually, it’s mine as I can speak it (and why every commentator agrees with me) Let’s do a breakdown with other translations and see if I “changed” anything:

        “God had taken a Covenant from the Children of Israel… (5:12)

        You’ll notice I put “…” meaning I am skipping in a quote. This is probably why you thought I “changed” something as you don’t know how to read:

        Other popular translations:

        Sahih International
        “And Allah had already taken a covenant from the Children of Israel…”

        Muhsin Khan
        “Indeed Allah took the covenant from the Children of Israel (Jews)…”

        Yusuf Ali
        “God did aforetime take a covenant from the Children of Israel…”

        https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/5/12/

        Next part:

        Me
        “But they broke their promise, so I cursed them and made their hearts hard. They changed the words from their original places and have forgotten a large portion of what they were told repeatedly to remember, so you will continue to find treachery against you or cheats from a few of them. Overlook this and forgive them because God loves those who excel in doing good.

        Sahih International
        “So for their breaking of the covenant We cursed them and made their hearts hard. They distort words from their [proper] usages and have forgotten a portion of that of which they were reminded. And you will still observe deceit among them, except a few of them. But pardon them and overlook [their misdeeds]. Indeed, Allah loves the doers of good.”

        Muhsin Khan
        “So because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard. They change the words from their (right) places and have abandoned a good part of the Message that was sent to them. And you will not cease to discover deceit in them, except a few of them. But forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds). Verily, Allah loves AlMuhsinoon (gooddoers – see V.2:112)..”

        Yusuf Ali
        “But because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard; they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the message that was sent them, nor wilt thou cease to find them- barring a few – ever bent on (new) deceits: but forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds): for God loveth those who are kind.”

        https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/5/12/

        Me
        “I had also taken a Covenant from those who say: “We’re Christians,” but they too forgot part of what they were told to remember. So I released animosity and hatred among themselves until the Day of Judgement, when God will tell them what they used to manufacture.”

        Sahih International
        “And from those who call themselves Christians, We took their covenant, but they have abandoned a good part of the Message that was sent to them. So We planted amongst them enmity and hatred till the Day of Resurrection (when they discarded Allahs Book, disobeyed Allahs Messengers and His Orders and transgressed beyond bounds in Allahs disobedience), and Allah will inform them of what they used to do.”

        Muhsin Khan
        “And from those who say, “We are Christians” We took their covenant; but they forgot a portion of that of which they were reminded. So We caused among them animosity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection. And Allah is going to inform them about what they used to do.”

        Yusuf Ali
        “From those, too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message that was sent them: so we estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to the day of judgment. And soon will God show them what it is they have done.”

        https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/5/14/

        Me
        People of the Scripture! My Messenger has come to you; clarifying what you used to keep hidden of the Scripture and who overlooks much… (5:12-15)

        Sahih International
        “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…”

        Muhsin Khan
        “O people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians)! Now has come to you Our Messenger (Muhammad SAW) explaining to you much of that which you used to hide from the Scripture and passing over (i.e. leaving out without explaining) much…”

        Yusuf Ali
        “O people of the Book! There hath come to you our Apostle, revealing to you much that ye used to hide in the Book, and passing over much (that is now unnecessary)…

        So not only are you ignorant of the Arabic language but English as well. So on a scale of 1-10 how embarrassing is this for you and Wood right now?

        Like

      • yeah, its sooo exciting, because you misunderstood . I was obviously talking bout the translation Paul gave.

        Like

      • @ Jimmy

        Keep in mind not only does commentary agree with me, not only do I have clear statements from Muhammad’s(saw) disciples this is the meaning I haven’t even brought implicit text into play for example:

        98:1. Those who disbelieved among the followers of the People of the Scripture and the pagans would’ve never stopped until clear proof came to them.
        98:2. A Messenger from God, reciting and following PURIFIED pages,
        98:3. which contain upstanding teachings and laws in it.

        Why would God say they wouldn’t stop until a Messenger came with PURIFIED pages, Jimmy? That doesn’t make a lot of sense now, does it?

        Like

      • @ Jimmy

        Hmmm…now you wouldn’t be fibbing would you now Jimmy? What does the Bible say about bearing false witness again? 🤔🤔🤔 The beauty of writing is we can look back. You said:

        “Yeah, the guy who translated this is a master of Arabic. He literally invented a new Arabic Quran with this translation, cuz those words are not in there. The fact you have to give false translation shows that you can’t even argue properly for your pow.”

        Paul didn’t quote any Arabic (or the Quran for that matter) in his post so you can’t be talking about him? Well wait maybe you meant to say Greek because that’s what John is in:

        If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. (John 5:46)

        No that couldn’t be it because this is the NIV 🤔🤔🤔 Hmmm…the other problem is you put it under my post quoting the Quran. So what were you talking about Jimmy clarify it for me?

        Like

      • Like D. said it doesn’t make a lot of sense they should follow what yhey have if it wad full of lies. It just accuses they didn’t follow the truth they had and it would take new pages to listen. Its like he said 2:79 is the best you got and he refuted that completely.

        Like

      • @ Jimmy

        Oh, you’re talking about Paul’s verses disproving Wood. Oh that’s is Muhammad Asad’s so no you’re still wrong on that account:

        https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/5/st20.htm#47

        So now that’s been solved are you ready to admit being wrong?

        Like

      • @ Jimmy

        It’s 2:79 btw and that’s interesting you haven’t said anything about what I quoted lol. Shockingly, he is misquoting and notice he doesn’t give the background of what he says (there’s a reason for that) I wrote a whole post on this:

        https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2019/02/24/corruption-of-the-scriptures-part-i-does-islam-confirm-the-bible-as-a-scripture-from-god/

        I know this might be weird but this isn’t Christianity where everyone just says what they “feel” the text says.

        Like

      • Uhh let me apologise a now. He said D. doesn’t know Arabic so I assumed he gave translation of someone who knows. But that guy is invented those words himself. Sooo sorry abouut that

        Like

      • Wrong about this Assad fellow translation?! If you agree with that translation You can make the Quran say whatever you want.. I already answered on 5:13. But like he said 2:79 is the best u got.

        Like

      • @ Jimmy

        Oh, Asad is more qualified than Wood lol:

        “By his mid-twenties, he could read and write in English, French, Persian and Arabic.[24][25][26][27]… Later, after seventeen years of scholarly research, he published his magnum opus: The Message of the Qur’an—an English translation and commentary of the Quran.[33] The book, along with the translations of Pickthall and Yusuf Ali, is regarded as one of the most influential translations of the modern era.[6][34][33]

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Asad

        So again this is still wrong.

        Liked by 2 people

      • @ Jimmy

        You answered nothing, give me scholarly commentary (that ALL agrees with me) says what you claimed? Just saying no, no, no, la la la la la la la is not an answer.

        Liked by 1 person

      • It’s obviously a completely tendentious translation. Its not what it reads. But arighty then. I know you can’t be taken seriously if you agree that is what it says.

        Like

      • @ Jimmy

        That’s right the guy who speaks multiple languages (and is Jewish btw) lied for no reason and Wood who is a bias missionary who is ignorant of Arabic didn’t 🙄🙄🙄

        You’re now learning Wood is a liar or stupid. Again notice he never quotes scholarship and he just essentially fool Middle-class white people who are scared the “Mooslims are coming”. Compare what Asad said and show me what the man who “has one of the most influential translations of the modern era changed” for no reason.

        Liked by 2 people

      • @ Jimmy

        Let’s read together:

        “But they broke their promise, so I cursed them and made their hearts hard. They changed the words from their original places and have forgotten a large portion of what they were told repeatedly to remember

        let’s read the passage on the meaning of “they changed” or “they distort”

        https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/5/13/w4wbv.html

        يُحَرِّفُونَ (Yuharifuna) What is the meaning?

        “To pervert, dislocate, change, turn away, discard anything from, alter, tamper with. To turn a thing from its proper way or manner, mistranscribe a word”

        https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/roots/Haa-Ra-Fa.html

        There is NO DOUBT the Quran states they changed their scriptures again Wood doesn’t know anything about Islam and is a paid fear monger for powers that be:

        https://islamophobianetwork.com/

        Liked by 1 person

      • Yeah accuses they changed the meaning like in 4:46 and 5:41. Not the written text. Not unequivocal as the man said.

        Like

      • @ Jimmy

        Yes, they do puns but look at the context of the statements Jimmy.

        4:46. There are some from the Jews who change words out of context, using puns and wordplay. They pretend to say good things but with a twist of their tongues, say: “We hear what you say, but we do not obey,” and “Listen to our words. May you never hear again!” and “Hey it’s ‘our shepherd’ who depends on us for work!” making a mockery of the religion. If they had said instead: “We heard and obeyed.” and “Wait, we didn’t hear,” and “Shepherd us.” it would’ve been better and more appropriate for them. But God has cursed them for their disbelief, and now few will have any real faith.

        5:41. Messenger, do not grieve over those who race to surpass one another in disbelief. The same ones who say with their mouths: “We believe,” but who really have no faith in their hearts, or the Jews who listen eagerly to any lies. Listening to those who haven’t even met you and are twisting the meanings of words from their context…

        5:13. But they broke their promise, so I cursed them and made their hearts hard. They changed the words from their original places and have forgotten a large portion of what they were told repeatedly to remember, so you will continue to find treachery against you or cheats from a few of them. Overlook this and forgive them because God loves those who excel in doing good.

        The scholarship didn’t just “get confused” words change depending on context of usage. Notice in 4:46 and 5:41:

        1. it’s obvious they are doing wordplays in the Arabic (hard to translate but 4:46 gives examples of them doing it)

        2. Notice it mentions their mouths and tongues but doesn’t in 5:13

        3. What did they forget of the Scripture in 5:13 and 5:14? Hint:
        https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2018/04/21/missing-books-in-the-bible/

        4. In 5:14 it says: “…God will tell them what they used to manufacture.”

        Word used for “manufacture” يَصْنَعُونَ (Yasna una) meaning:
        “build, manufacture”
        https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/roots/Sad-Nun-Ayn.html

        5. 5:15 says “People of the Scripture! My Messenger has come to you; clarifying what you used to keep hidden of the Scripture and who OVERLOOKS MUCH. A light has now come to you from God, along with a Scripture MAKING THINGS CLEAR”

        What does overlooking mean? Flows into my next point:

        6. ALL scholarship agrees this is the meaning:

        O People of the Scripture, Jews and Christians, now there has come to you Our Messenger, Muhammad (s), making clear to you much of what you used to conceal of the Scripture, the Torah and the Gospel, such as the ‘stoning’ verse and the description [of the Prophet Muhammad (s)], and pardoning much, of it, which he does not reveal, since this would not be of any benefit, serving only to disgrace you.

        Click to access Al_Jalalain_Eng.pdf

        (O People of the Scripture! Now has come to you Our Messenger explaining to you much of that which you used to hide from the Scripture and passing over much.) So the Prophet explained where they altered, distorted, changed and lied about Allah. He also ignored much of what they changed, since it would not bring about any benefit if it was explained.

        http://m.qtafsir.com/Surah-Al-Maeda/Explaining-the-Truth-Through-t—

        This is directly saying they altered the text and no amount of gymnastics will change that as its plainly stated by EVERYBODY for over 1,000 years before Wood entered the picture. He is wrong plain and simple.

        Liked by 2 people

      • So exactly they accuse them of puns, that’s it. They didn’t change the text itself. Like Abdullah Saeed said in the video.

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ Jimmy

        Keep in mind I haven’t even brought other evidence into play but I’ll ask a simple question Jimmy, do words change their meaning in relation to context?

        Like

      • Whatever, like he said 2:79 is the best you got and he refuted that. Fairnsquare.

        Like

      • @ Jimmy

        I’ll ask again because you apparently didn’t hear me, can words change their meaning depending on context? For example:

        The space of the trunk is huge.

        The trunk went to space

        Are these the same meanings Jimmy? Surely you have so much scholarship this should be easy to just show me real quick.

        Like

      • Obviously, but the accusation is oral puns. Like he said nowhere is the written text unequivocally altered. 2:79 is the best you got and it got refuted. Fair n square.

        Like

      • @ Jimmy

        No, you simply don’t know what you’re talking about which is why you refuse to answer my question. So again do words meaning change depending on context? Just need a yes or no.

        Like

      • @ Jimmy

        When a pun is used is it obvious from the context (they twist with their tongues for example)?

        Like

    • @ Ken

      My claim does not rely on the Jews and I could care less what they say. Let me help you because you don’t know how proper interpretation works.

      First off you look at other places an author talks to find out the intended meaning this is why every verse I listed, I then list a parallel in the Hebrew Bible. Do for example the “sprout or plant” is CLEARLY used for Israel throughout the text (which is enough proof right here) but you expect us to just go “Oh no that’s not the case in this specific spot”. It’s ludicrous. I have asked who the speaker is in Isaiah 53 and you still to this day refuse to answer (as this shuts this stupid interpretation down)

      Next you demonstrate your poor grammar by quoting 53:11 it does NOT say “(verse 11 – My servant will justify the many”, verse 12 – He bore the sin of many”, etc.)” Unlike the Biblical authors let’s read it:

      He shall see the fruit of the travail of his soul and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous; and he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore I will divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he poured out his soul to death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. (Isaiah 53:11-12)

      From my article with the references:

      “Verse 11 says that he will teach people to be righteous. According to modern Christendom, it was not Jesus’s (peace be upon him) knowledge that made man right with God but his suffering, death and blood on the cross. This also can’t refer to his followers as the one doing the action here is the servant himself. Furthermore, how did he fulfill verse 12, which says that he will “divide the spoil”? This word “shalal” is used for war booty like:

      “The enemy boasted, ‘I will pursue, I will overtake them. I will divide the spoils (shalal); I will gorge myself on them. I will draw my sword and my hand will destroy them.’”[23]

      They took all the plunder and spoils (shalal), including the people and animals, and brought the captives, spoils (shalal) and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho. [24]

      As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder (shalalah) for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. [25]

      The real meaning of this passage is how God raised up Israel to be an example for the world. [26] and that Jews, who remained faithful to God, will be rewarded. Regarding the “intercession for the transgressors” this has nothing to do with the crucifixion; it is part of the command for the Jews always pray for the nations they are exiled to. [27]”

      Now here are the Biblical references for everything I stated:

      [23] Exodus 15:9

      [24] Numbers 31:11-12

      [25] Deuteronomy 20:14

      [26] Deut. 4:5-8

      Also, I could care less what some writer claims Jesus(as) said (and if he did state this claim one would easily conclude he was a false prophet as well) This is why you don’t comment on the relevant page so that people can see this weak crap.

      Like

      • Isaiah 53:12a – about booty and winning a portion, etc. points back to the success of the Messiah in redeeming people from all the nations, and the spiritual seed / offspring (see also Isaiah 53:10) that the Messiah’s death and resurrection accomplishes, as 54:-13 shows – which is quoted in Galatians 4:27 – the opening of the way for the Gentiles / nations – one of your references is back to Exodus 15:9 – yes, God is a warrior – Exodus 15:2-3 (same context – the celebration of God’s righteous judgment on Egypt and the false gods of Egypt (Exodus 12:12) and the salvation / redemption of the believers and Israel through the blood of the Passover lamb and passing over them, because of the substitutionary sacrifice and bloody death of the innocent victims (which even Islam unwittingly and knowingly affirmed in Surah 37:107) – they were redeemed / saved.

        The Messiah’s booty after His death and resurrection is in winning people from all the nations, the seed of Isaiah 53:10 is the same thing – spiritual children being won in all the nations. (Revelation 5:9; Galatians chapters 3-4) So, the booty and success and seed is all spiritual – the winning of more people from all the nations. (not physical war)

        Like

      • @ Ken

        it says he “divides the spoils” this is not a metaphor and is never used as such in the entire biblical text. Where is your proof for this claim?

        Also, the word “zera” in the verse is NEVER used for “spiritual descendants” in the Bible. Again where is your proof for any of this? From my article:

        The word for “offspring” in this verse is zera – זֶרַעwhich when means actual descendants and is literally used to refer to semen. The word banim (בנים), is usually used to refer to spiritual descendants. A passage that shows a good example of these words being used together is in Genesis when Abraham (peace be upon him) is complaining about his lack of children and says his servant will be his heir:

        But Abram replied, “O Lord GOD, what can You give me, since I remain childless, and the heir (ben) of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?” Abram continued, “Behold, You have given me no offspring (zerah), so a servant (ben) in my household will be my heir.” Then the word of the LORD came to him, saying, “This one will not be your heir, but one who comes from your own body will be your heir.” [19]

        Another passage to show this is ironically the one Christian apologists sometimes try to use to refute this argument which is in Isaiah 57:3-4:

        “But you–come here, you children (bene) of a sorceress, you offspring (zerah) of adulterers and prostitutes! Whom are you mocking? At whom do you snarl and stick out your tongue? Are you not children of transgression, offspring (zerah) of deceit [20]

        Notice when mentioning a ‘sorceress’ the word ‘bene’ (sons) is used because they were her followers. When referring to those sins that their parents did, the word zerah is used, since they were the physical children of people whose parents did those sins. So as one can see Isaiah 53 is being quite literal when it says “The Servant” will see his descendants (zerah).

        The even bigger problem though is God can’t follow what He sent and “live long days”. The Hebrew word in the verse is ‘ki’, which according to Brown-Driver-Briggs means:

        “when, if, though (with a concessive force)” [21]

        Which makes this is conditional: “if you do this, you will get this” implying there is a choice. Would God not make the choice to obey Himself? Also, it says ‘it was the will of the Lord to bruise him’. If Jesus (peace be upon him) is part of this ‘godhead’ it should have said, “it was his will to bruise Himself” or something like that. The verse is implying that the servant was not happy about the situation but it was God’s decree.

        Now some might try to run to this alleged “human/divine nature” of Jesus (peace be upon him), but it’s quite frankly irrelevant. If we say this refers to Jesus’ human side, he according to Christianity, died quite young. According to Frier’s Life Table for the Roman Empire, once a person reached the age of 30 in the ancient Roman empire, their average life expectancy was 59.[22]

        Even if we ignore the statistics for a moment, many early Christian writers lived long lives, even by today’s standards. Polycarp was over 85, Justin Martyr died at 65, Origen was 69 and Tertullian made it past 75. So this can’t apply to the ‘human’ side that is supposed to have died at 33. To say Jesus getting crucified is the reason his divine side was given a long life makes no sense either because according to Trinitarian doctrine Jesus (peace be upon him) is alleged to be God and requires no outside force to make himself eternal. So he clearly did not fulfill any of this.\

        https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2020/04/05/the-crucifiction-series-part-3-what-the-prophets-of-old-foretold/

        Like

      • Bro it doesn’t matter what you bring to these kaffirs. Their hearts are hardened and they will not believe even with a mountain of evidence presented to them.

        First of all there is no real evidence that the early Muslims believed the Jewish and Christian Scriptures were not corrupted. There IS evidence that that they believed it was corrupt:

        Ibn Abbaas (companion of the prophet) said in his commentary on Surah 2:79…

        (Therefore woe) severe punishment, and it is said this means: a valley in Hell (be unto those who write the Scripture with their hands) change the description and traits of Muhammad (pbuh) in the Book (and then say, ” This is) in the Book that has come (from Allah ” , that they may purchase) through changing and altering it (a small gain therewith) a small gain in terms of means of subsistence and surplus of property. (Woe unto them) theirs is a severe punishment (for what their hands have written) have altered (and woe unto them) and theirs is a severe punishment (for what they earn thereby) of unlawful earnings and bribes. (Ibn Abbaas, Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs, Commentary on Surah 2:79, Source)

        Volume 9, Book 93, Number 614:

        Narrated ‘Ubaidullah bin ‘Abdullah:

        ‘Abdullah bin ‘Abbaas said, “O the group of Muslims! How can you ask the people of the Scriptures about anything while your Book which Allah has revealed to your Prophet contains the most recent news from Allah and is pure and not distorted? Allah has told you that the people of the Scriptures have changed some of Allah’s Books and distorted it and wrote something with their own hands and said, ‘This is from Allah, so as to have a minor gain for it. Won’t the knowledge that has come to you stop you from asking them? No, by Allah, we have never seen a man from them asking you about that (the Book Al-Qur’an ) which has been revealed to you.

        And the prophet himself said:

        The Bani Israel wrote a book, they followed it and left the Torah. (This hadith was reported in Tabarani’s Al Mu’jam Al Awsat and was authenticated by Sheikh Nasr Al Deen Al Albani in his Silsila Al Ahaadeeth Al Saheeha, hadith no. 2832.)

        The Bani Israel as a long time passed and their hearts became hardened, they invented a book from themselves. It took over their hearts and their tongues. (This hadith was reported in Al Bayhaqi’s Shu’b Al Eemaan, Volume 2, no.439. Sheikh Nasr Al Deen Al Albani has authenticated this hadith in his Silsila Al Ahaadeeth Al Saheeha, hadith no. 2694.)

        The last two are the words of the prophet and they are explicit. Will this be good enough for them? No.

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ Atlas

        I know it doesn’t matter to this kaffir lol. You know who it does matter? The people who read this blog and don’t comment. They see the ducking and diving and they are the ones I’m really talking to. I literally use Temple as a living specimen of someone whose heart, eyes and ears have been sealed by God. Literally had a Muslim ask me about this (regarding Baqarah), this week. I went to the blog and showed him this link with Kennywise dancing around a basic question:

        https://bloggingtheology.com/2020/03/19/the-scandal-of-christian-forgeries-in-the-bible/

        And he just was silent and like: “Wow…he knows he’s wrong and it’s a forgery but he keeps going…” And I’m like: “Yep, welcome to the wonderful world of being a kaffir. I get to see it live every day 😒🚬 “

        Liked by 1 person

  6. No it doesn’t you idiot the two things aren’t even related. He(as) can be the Messiah and never once touch isaiah 53.

    yes it is; it is proof that Isaiah 52-53 is about the Messiah suffering servant, Jesus Al Masih.

    Jesus Himself that it is about Him – Mark 10:45; 14:24

    Luke 24:25-49 (a massive amount of proof)

    Like

  7. Also, the word “zera” in the verse is NEVER used for “spiritual descendants” in the Bible. Again where is your proof for any of this?

    Yes, it is.

    Galatians chapter 3-4 and the quote in Galatians 4:27 from Isaiah 54:1-3 (look at that, flowing right out from Isaiah 53 . . . hmmmm . . . . ) prove this, as his inspired argument is that the Gentiles / nations are coming into the kingdom, the true Jerusalem (Gal 4:26) – the Jerusalem above, she is our mother” – an allusion back to Psalm 87 – this one and that one will be born in her, those who know Me – Gentiles from Egypt, Canaan, Philistines, Ethiopia, Babylon, etc. – God’s love for all nations in the OT – the theme from Genesis 12:3; 18:18; 22:17-18; 26:4; 28:14; 49:10 – part of what Jesus meant in John 5:46 – Moses wrote of Me.

    Galatians chapters 3-4 give the proper Jewish first century AD / disciples of Jesus that Islam confirms in 3:55 and 6:14- interpretation of the OT. (not the Pharisees and post 70 AD Rabbinic tradition.)

    Like

    • @ Ken

      As you are too stupid to understand, the NT authors don’t know what they’re talking about. Give me an example from the Hebrew Bible of their claims (lie how I gave a BEVY for mine)

      Like

      • No; the NT authors are the Disciples of Jesus, الحواریون (Surah 3:52, context down to 3:55 – they became the uppermost) they became the dominant / manifest / obvious ones – Surah 6:14.

        They were the eyewitnesses (Peter, John, Matthew (gospels); later Paul eyewitness of His resurrection – Acts 9, 22, 26) of Jesus Al Masih, along with those that also helped them write their gospels / letters. (Mark for Peter, Barnabas or Silas or possibly Luke writing one of Paul’s sermons for Hebrews; Luke, the physician and fellow-missionary with Paul. John, Peter, Matthew, James, the half-brother of Jesus, and Paul are all eyewitness of His resurrection. They are the true Al-Hawaryoon / الحواریون (disciples of Jesus Al Masih).

        What is a BEVY?

        Like

      • @ Ken

        Once again I do not care about what anonymous lying heretics claim. We are discussing the Hebrew Bible and what they are misquoting. Give me evidence from the HEBREW BIBLE (aka the “Old” Testament) of your claims.

        bevy- : a large group or collection

        https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bevy

        I gave a “bevy” of evidence Isaiah 53 is about exiled Israel using the Hebrew Bible. Here is an example:

        “Who has believed what we have heard? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or comeliness that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him. (Isaiah 53:1-2)

        The world leaders are talking about how shocked they are about Israel being saved. The ‘arm of the Lord being revealed’ mentioned in the verse is used as a metaphor for the Jews being delivered from persecution. Examples from the Hebrew Bible include: Exodus 3:20, Exodus 6:6, Exodus 14:31, Exodus 15:6; Deut. 4:34, Deut. 7:19; 26:8 Isaiah 51:9, Isaiah 52:10, Isaiah 62:8, Isaiah 63:12; Jeremiah 21:5, 27:5; Ezekiel 20:33; Psalms 44:3, Psalms 89:11, Psalms 98:1 and Psalms 136:12.

        This metaphor of a tiny plant growing in the desert is meant to represent Israel as it struggles in the diaspora. No one will ‘want or desire’ this plant because it will obviously die in this environment. Examples of this metaphor being used for the nation of Israel in the Hebrew Bible are: Isaiah 60:21, Ezekiel 19:13, Hosea 14:6-7 and Amos 9:15”

        https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2020/04/05/the-crucifiction-series-part-3-what-the-prophets-of-old-foretold/

        You see how I was able to quote the metaphor for Israel in no less than 22 places from the Hebrew Bible? Do the same thing with your made-up claims. The context is OBVIOUSLY exiled Israel.

        Liked by 1 person

  8. No, they don’t and again we are discussing Isaiah 53.

    Yes, they do . . .
    Mark 10:45 and Matthew 20:28 and

    Mark 14:24
    Matthew chapter 26
    Luke chapters 22-24

    all demonstrate they understood Jesus as fulfilling Isaiah 53.

    Jesus said those words in Mark 10:45 and 14:24

    “The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve and give His life a ransom for many.”

    “This is My body given for you . . . this is My blood of the new covenant for the forgiveness of sins, for many”
    Mark 14, Matthew 26, Luke 22, 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 all confirm this on how Jesus Himself understood Isaiah 53.

    Like

  9. O and dear Christians! Don’t pretend we’ve forgotten what this was originally about. Your DW has been asked for years to give statements from Jesus where he says without wordplay or riddles that he is God. The reason for asking this is the same reason why many Christian scholars ask this which is if he really was God than that would be the NUMBER ONE THING he would say without ANY riddles. But when DW is asked about this, he doesn’t answer. The reason for this is that he simply can’t because he even he knows just how INCOMPETANT his mangod is. And as usual runs off and turns to Islam and commits an equivalence fallacy by comparing the question that is asked of him (and of every christian in fact) with the question ‘where does the Qur’an say clearly that the Gospel is corrupted’. This pathetic attempt to weasel his way out of not being able to answer where his mangod clearly states he is God is just pityful. We are talking about THE NUMBER ONE THING that Jesus WOULD HAVE, SHOULD HAVE, MUST HAVE said if he really was God. It’s truly unthinkable under any situation for him not to be crystal clear about this. This is the one thing there should be no riddles attachted to and YET it offers us NOTHING BUT riddles and games and wordplays.

    If you people had any honesty in you, you would give a equivalent example for Islam, namely: Where does the Prophet Muhammad say he is the prophet of God unequivocally?
    But you know that this question will only bury you further because the Hadiths and the Sira is FILLED from beginning to end with him saying he is the prophet of God unequivocally. Thats why you don’t ask this. That’s why you run to a side question which try and equate it to the question we’ve been asking you for years and commit an equivalence fallacy.
    Our Prophet said countless of times ‘I am the Messenger of Allah’ which is the number one claim you would expect him to make and there is NO ARGUMENT in the world that could save the Muslims if our sources didn’t containt such CLEAR statements because if you are a Messenger/Prophet then it’s unthinkable for you never to mention this clearly and yet your mangod couldn’t even do that for himself about him being God, a statement mind you which is FAAAAAAR MORE impressive and countless of times of greater importance than the statement the Prophet Muhammad made about himself being a Prophet of God. A statement which is unthinkable not to mention if it were really true! But yet your mangod just doesn’t do it! How incompetent can one be?!!!

    Now go ahead Christians, pet yourselves on the back and tell yourselves that you have won the argument. Be as delusional as you always have been? Tell yourselves you have answered the Muslim objection (which of course till this day you STILL haven’t and we are still waiting for an answer. A REAL answer. Not you trying to weasel your way out like cowards.). And go ahead, go back to worshipping a man like you always have and pretend these games you play (filled with fallacies like I showed above) will be able to help you against the Almighty on the Day of Resurrection.

    And we will still be waiting for the worlds most expected statement from your mangod where he says he is God without wordplay and riddles and you will still not answer the question/objection like always.

    Liked by 2 people

    • @ Atlas

      I could’ve sworn Wood originally did try to argue “Where does Muhammad say I’m a prophet”

      Anyways, they won nothing as our text is crystal clear on this issue. But I agree the premise of the whole argument is retarded because we don’t claim the Quran to be our only source of revelation and we don’t have to artificially limit ourselves for no reason. It’s like if I “challenge” for the foretelling of the man-god using only the book of Judges. There’s no reason for it as they claim other sources besides the one book.

      Liked by 2 people

      • They have to put things like ‘GAME OVER’ in the thumbnail and DESTROYING ISLAMIC MYTH in the title to give some special effects and yet at the end of the day they’re nothing more than manworshipers who failed the challenge and committed the fallacies to weasel their way out of it.

        Liked by 3 people

      • @ Atlas

        SubhanAllah I was reading my juz for the day and what is this ANOTHER reference that we don’t think their books are good in Surah Imran? Ahem:

        3:23. Haven’t you seen those who were given PART of the Scripture? They’re being called to Allah’s Book, so that it can decide between all the arguments among them and some of them turned away and refused,
        3:24. because they claimed: “The Fire will not touch us for more than a couple of days!” The lies they’ve invented have deluded them even in their own religion.

        I’m sorry they don’t have the whole thing? is this just “puns” as well?

        Again we don’t need this because we have multile Sahih ahadith that put the matter to rest I’m just saying Kuffar are retarded…

        Liked by 1 person

    • @ Atlas

      Agreed. Basically, the argument is:

      “Yeah the person we worship doesn’t claim to be God but, but your one text (and you can’t use others even though we’ll quote from them freely) “doesn’t say” our books are corrupt ignoring the fact that it’s well known by scholarship) ha, ha we win, you lose, you suck GAME OVER”

      Liked by 3 people

      • @ Jimmy

        What the heck are you reading from? This is all Jalalyn says on 3:23:

        “[3:23]
        Have you not seen those who were given a portion, a share, of the Book, the Torah, being called to the
        Book of God (yud‘awna, ‘being called’, is a circumstantial qualifier), that it might decide between them, and then a party of them turned away, opposed? to the acceptance of its rulings. This was revealed concerning the Jews: two of them fornicated and they [the Jews] asked the Prophet (s) to adjudicate the case. He ruled that they be stoned, but they [the Jews] refused to do so. When the Torah was brought and consulted, the same verdict was found, and so the two were stoned, but they [the Jews] became wrathful.

        It now moves to the next verse:

        [3:24]
        That, turning away and rejection was, because they said, ‘the Fire shall not touch us, except for a number of days’, that is, for forty days [only], the length of time their forefathers worshipped the calf, after which it would end; and the lies they used to invent, in their saying this, have deluded them in their religion (wagharrahum fī dīnihim, ‘it has deluded them in their religion’, is semantically connected to mā kānū yaftarūna, ‘the lies which they used to invent’).

        So please point out to me what you are claiming from the above.

        Moving on, the reason I am not discussing this “the zombie theory” is because it’s a desperate tangent of you trying to save face from not looking like a dumb@$$ for not reading what you posted and said. To further expand on this point of you not actually reading the review that you posted please from that review point me out where the reviewer states the following:

        “…there is no better translation and commentary. ”

        If you actually read it his “points of caution” where the majority of the review.

        In addition, you further show your retardation by trying to downplay the “reviewer” that YOU brought up and are using for your own authority refutes your entire point. Talk about an embarrassing failure, lol.

        Continuing on, I find it funny that you are seriously trying to argue they are not trying to promote heretical ideas among Muslims when I literally quoted two research teams that actively talked about it. You can make corny jokes all day but the facts remain.

        Moving on the trinity is shirk. I’ll keep it simple do you say Jesus Christ is God in the Trinity, dumb@$$?

        5:17. They who would dare utter: “God is Christ… are no doubt disbelievers.

        Ohhhhhhhhh what’s this the 5th time you’ve been made to look stupid in this conversation? I mean this is becoming bad. But go ahead and keep playing your little games and see how they’ll help you on the Day of Judgement.

        No, I didn’t read your citations as I one I don’t consider the SQ authoritative actually quote the real scholarly quotes they say, two I didn’t originally see them and three I automatically know that because you’re a retarded kaffir who is future fuel for Hell you had no idea what you were reading.

        PS
        I’ll just leave this here to jog your brain:
        “I would love if Qadhi would put in the “zombie” theory in the next translation and commentary of the Quran.”

        Like

    • So first of, if God only caused part of the scripture to be “given” to them that’s not their fault and doesn’t say it was corrupted. Second of, your own text say that the Torah, Gospel and Quran was all part of the same book, so yeah whatever it’s talking about it was only part. Third of, some of your own scholars say straight up, there is no problem with the Torah and Gospel.

      “Al-Qurṭubī notes that Muslims can read and act according to the Torah, except for whatever is known to be abrogated by the Quran or hadīth, and that they are obligated to act in accord with the religious laws of previous prophets (an observation he repeats in his treatment of 5:43) unless these laws are abrogated by Islam. However, for al-Qurṭubī this would have been conditional upon the text being authentic, and although the Prophet would have known what was authentic, we cannot do likewise. Although tempered by questions of abrogation (naskh; see 2:106) and distortion (tahrif; see 2:75), this verse and 5:43 can be seen to suggest, together with the Prophet’s actions, the continuing religious validity and spiritual efficacy of previous scriptures for the followers of those religions”. The Study Quran at 3:23

      “The Quran is further described as a protector ( muhaymin ) over the previous scriptures, meaning
      that the Quran testifies to the validity of the earlier scriptures and serves as their trustee, keeper, and guardian ( Ṭabari , Zamakshari)”. The Study Quran at 5:48.

      Liked by 1 person

      • @ Jimmy

        First off this is all irrelevant. I simply needed to prove the text was no good. Which I have as you are now clearly stuck.

        Second, that argument sucks as God sent a prophet and a Scripture to inform them that it’s corrupt. That’s like saying its not the Jews fault who worshipped idols during Elijiah’s(as) time.

        Thirdly, the “Study Quran” as has been discussed on the blog before is NOT scholarship. They don’t even have normal Muslims on there it’s just a bunch of nobodies who are Sufi, Shia or non-Muslim (which is strange as you would basically have to had to do that purposefully, almost like you were trying to use propaganda to promote a new group to pacify Muslims understanding of their religious text:

        https://search.wikileaks.org/gifiles/?viewemailid=396127

        https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/2005/MR1716.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3WDVRcJCB_F8_nFufu2Urh6U9J6Tl7byjgtjWcBNuBw-aN-KC3wLu88l0

        Fourthly, while you’re trying to act like we “switched”, Qurtubi is closer to our time than the Prophet’s (saw). Furthermore, if you actually read him, he believed the text was corrupt as well. (This can be seen even in your “quote” for example why would he say it would have to be confirmed as authentic. Again if he thought it as good why would it need to be confirmed to be authentic?) This is why the “Study Quran” should have used actual scholars to explain. What Qurtubi is talking about is in the event you have a “tie” in a fiqh discussion we should default to the Biblical text (btw he’s not the only one to try and use weird evidence to break ties) The reason this didn’t catch on is again common sense:

        1. How can we tell if something is authentic when EVERYTHING in your text is unsourced?
        2. Even in the quote he just stated the Prophet(saw) knew what was correct through revelation not reading this fanfiction being paraded as the Torah and Gospel.
        3. Read the muyman quote again why would I be the protector or keeper of something? This is another problem as this new theory you’re trying to promote doesn’t even make sense. This refers to it keeps the principles previous nations were given protected and throws out the trash. An exampele would be something like the parable of the lost coin.

        Fifthly, I have a challenge for you. Show me in the Quran where it states all 3 are the same text. What you misunderstood is it’s on the “Preserved Tablet” in Heaven not on earth.

        Sixthly, this is all just theoretical talk as we KNOW for a fact it is corrupt.

        In conclusion:
        A. God says it’s corrupt
        B. Muhammad ](saw) said it’s corrupt
        C. Muhammad’s disciples (ra) said it’s corrupt
        D. Pretty much every scholar for the last one thousand four hundred years said it’s corrupt
        E. Jewish and Christian scholarship says its corrupt
        F. Manuscripts say it’s corrupt
        G.The text in question itself (Jeremiah 8:8:) says it’s corrupt

        What is the discussion again? Oh yeah, you all failing to show how you didn’t take a prophet and turn him into God by simply showing an example of him commanding you to worship him.

        Liked by 2 people

      • So first of, your own scholars Jalalayn you put up above basically goes it says a portion because it talks only about the Torah. He just says there was this incident and even when they pulled out the Torah they came to the same verdict. It’s just straight up wrong and irrelevant what you say that they didn’t have the whole thing means corruption. It just means it talks about the Torah only. Even your own scholars admit it refers to the Torah and this incident.

        Second of the argument sucks, cuz like D. said 2:79 is the best you have and that was completely destroyed and all you brought are even less clear verses that never unequivocally says earlier scriptures were corrupt.

        Third of, the Study Quran, is just like one of the best modern translations and commentaries around.

        https://muslimmatters.org/2015/12/14/the-study-quran-a-review/

        All are university professors in Islamic studies, so yeah forgive me sooo much if I go with what they say instead of some random dude on the internet, who is defending a fake translation to make the case. Just for giggles let’s read along from the review:

        “Despite its readable prose and accessible language, Asad’s translation contains explicit Mu‘tazilite bias resulting in gross interpolations and allegory in place of evident meanings”.

        And they say like over and over again there is nothing wrong wrong with it. Just like D. quoted on of your own scholars, it’s more or less the same as 1400 years ago.

        Dude like did you even read what they say at 5:43 they mentioned in the quote: “This verse then along with vv. 44–47 indicates that the Torah and the Gospel remain valid sourcses of moral and legal judgesment and guidance for Jews and Christians, respectiveley, even after the coming of the Prophet—indeed, even in his presence”.

        Like

      • @ Jimmy

        This is all the Jalals said:

        [3:23]
        Have you not seen those who were given a portion, a share, of the Book, the Torah, being called to the
        Book of God (yud‘awna, ‘being called’, is a circumstantial qualifier), that it might decide between them, and then a party of them turned away, opposed? to the acceptance of its rulings. This was revealed concerning the Jews: two of them fornicated and they [the Jews] asked the Prophet (s) to adjudicate the case. He ruled that they be stoned, but they [the Jews] refused to do so. When the Torah was brought and consulted, the same verdict was found, and so the two were stoned, but they [the Jews] became wrathful.

        Essentially they said, “they were given a share of the Scripture, the Torah”. This can be seen from the context so this fails to hurt or help you.

        Again only no names made the SQ let’s see:

        Joseph E. B. Lumbard (Sufi)
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._B._Lumbard

        Caner K. Dagli (Sufi)
        https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS878US878&sxsrf=ALeKk00CcEvaJXHsl2wrg9-sUnDV4C6_sg:1588094677436&q=Caner+K.+Dagli&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAOPgE-LVT9c3NEwzNck2SU4xU-IBcY1yk4yT0g0qtWSyk630k_Lzs_XLizJLSlLz4svzi7KtEktLMvKLFrHyOSfmpRYpeOspuCSm52TuYGUEALGjSOVRAAAA&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjDx_jY0YvpAhWFVc0KHdW_CfAQmxMoAjAiegQIDhAE

        Seyyed Hossein Nasr (Shia)
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seyyed_Hossein_Nasr

        Mohammed Rustom (Sufi)
        https://www.mohammedrustom.com/

        Maria Massi Dakake (Shia)
        https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2770816-the-charismatic-community

        Now that’s strange? Why would you have a bunch of no-names who are religious minorities (making up less than 10-20% of the religious scripture being spoken on and ignored people WAY more qualified to have done this project in the US such as Dr.Yassir Qadhi or Dr. Tahir Wyatt? Hmmmm…Next a highlight from your review:

        “Put plainly, Muslim readers should not expect the SQ to inform their beliefs about orthodox Islam”

        Now as much as that’s a “mic-drop” there, did you read this review because he says they forced religious pluralism (aka the thing we are discussing):

        “An even more problematic concern is with the SQ’s pluralistic commitments.”

        He then basically sums up that these statements from SQ are BS:

        -The Trinity is not shirk
        – (Important for our discussion) “Q 2.79 and elsewhere are not speaking about the Kitābī Also, the sacred texts of the Kitābī traditions have not been excessively altered.”

        ‘The SQ has regrettable instances in which it has departed from consensus, namely, with respect to rajm and soteriological pluralism. In both cases, traditional theological methodologies have been jettisoned in favor of extenuating considerations and questionable heuristics that contradict normative orthodox religious teachings.”

        So long story short, even the reviewer you posted says these statements about corruption are incorrect. As I said nobody in universities is using the “Study Quran” this was just some BS invented due to desperation in getting our commentaries translated into English (which would have been more beneficial than this crap)

        Finally, lol I myself am in school in well so that doesn’t mean anything to me to and I can say confidently I am more qualified than all these people combined.

        Liked by 1 person

      • So your own scholars are straight up saying you are wrong cuz you just went “I’m sorry they don’t have the whole thing? is this just “puns” as well?”, yeah clear evidence of corruption. The “part of” thing has nothing to do with corruption it’s just saying it talks only about a part of it the Torah.

        Obviously some Muslims will disagree with this or that point or interpretation. This is the best translation and commentary there is, and this is the point of the review, disagree all you want. Even then they just went with the evidence and quoted your scholars, but you go, oh it’s a conspiracy. Yeah probably they were paid by the Zionist Jews, the feds or the Chinese. Sure.

        And then again you defend this Asad fellow who obviously pulled his translation out his hat just so it dint say that the Quran vouches for the veracity of the previous scriptures, as the SQ says it does. That’s your scholars saying that. Not me. Even Faiz who believes in substitution theory and that there are like gazillions of people trapped behind a wall somewhere on earth, that somehow escaped detection and what not, says this guy is way off base. Like a ton off base. Yet you defend this guy and criticize the top translation and commentary? Makes sense.

        Lol, so you are in school, whatever that means. But like all these guys are university professors with Ph.d’s from Yale etc. So yeah I’m gonna blive when some random guy on the internet who is in school says he is more qualified, than these scholars who just produced like the best translation and commentary? Right.

        Last off, just for giggles, I would love if Qadhi would put in the “zombie” theory in the next translation and commentary of the Quran.

        Like

      • Jalalayn didn’t state anything so this whole point is irrelevant. If somebody only has part of something how can the whole text be good? If somebody has to receive purified pages to stop:

        98:1. Those who disbelieved among the followers of the People of the Scripture and the pagans would’ve never stopped until clear proof came to them.
        98:2. A Messenger from God, reciting and following purified pages,
        98:3. which contain upstanding teachings and laws in it.

        How can the text be good?

        Next, this is NOT the best translation there is, the person literally said they were wrong and promoting heretical views and now you’re mad lol that your own proof said the same thing I stated and you look stupid for not reading it.

        Moving on,I didn’t defend Asad as perfect I said he didn’t alter the meaning of the verse and he is more qualified than David Wood (which is a fact).

        This shows how poor your understanding of Islamic scholarship is, guess what nobody cares about Harvard or Yale in Islamic sciences. That will get you no clout anywhere in the world. You might as well have said you didn’t study. Why do you think nobody says “oh Yassir Qadhi studied at Yale” they ONLY talk about his study at Madinah university as meaning anything.

        Finally, because you’re stupid, his “zombie theory” wasn’t even based off the Quran. Do you see how inept you are at actually discussing the religion?

        PS

        While you’re insulting him the guy who did the review you posted is his student, dumb@$$. Yeah, this is pretty embarrassing for you…

        PSS
        Being in school means you study at the feet of people qualified to discuss the topic.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jalalayn, you own scolar just said you’re plain wrong. It just says part of, cuz it talks about the Torah of the Jews he says, cuz they don’t believe the new testament. The full scripture is the Torah, Gospel and Quran. So there ya go, they had only part. The “part of” donst mean “corrupted” there.

        Even the “critical” reviewer praised it and there is no better translation and commentary. You just don’t like it. The SQ is just speaking the truth, using your own scholars, even if you or the reviewer don’t t agree with everything.

        Never it says it scriptures were corrupt and your own scholars says the Quran vouches the authenticity of previous scriptures. Already explained chap 98. Dosnt say previous scriptures were corrupted.

        Trinity is not shirk, because it is one God not three gods, So the SQ speaks the truth. You don’t like the trinity, whatever have it your way. But it’s not associating partners or being polytheistic. But maybe the trinitarian Jewish Zionist paid them to throw that one in. Who knows.

        So the reviewer is just straight up wrong there and the SQ speaks the truth. You and him don’t like that, too bad.

        Right, this Asad fellow didn’t change the meaning. He just made it say the opposite of what it means. Even the reviewer you sooo love said he made gross interpolations and that his translations is just tendentious. And did you even read the commentary on 5:48 and your own scholars I cited? The Quran vouchsafes for the veracity of the previous scriptures. Even in the presence of the Prophet.

        So like where did I say where it was based off? Maybe he pulled it out of his hat how would I know? But hey are you defending the “zombie” theory now or are saying there is like a gazillion people out there behind the wall that nobody ever seen?

        Like

      • LOL, little Jimmy is getting pummeled while he makes a fool out of himself. Why do you people stick your noses where they don’t belong? You have no clue what you are even talking about, just blabbering incoherently with your cut and paste “research”.

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ Jimmy

        @ Jimmy

        Uhh you might want to check Jalalayn again where does he state that?

        Next, I’m not the one who brought up the reviewer so how do I “love him” lol? I simply read the review unlike you and he said the same thing I stated.

        As for your Gog and Magogg comment I fail to see the relevance in the discussion.

        Next pull up Assad’s and show the alleged “change”.

        Like

      • @ QB

        I just find the thing hilarious:

        Jimmy: “Oh this reviewer says its the best translation and commentary ever”

        Me: “Yeah he also agrees with me and just I said that they’re wrong”

        Jimmy: “Oh you don’t like what it says”

        Like lol wth are you even talking about? Basically lol he’s picking and choosing from his “source” what he likes. He clearly didn’t read the review (and also didn’t know this was Yassir Qadhi’s student) and is trying to save face from looking stupid.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Lol, QB dude so do break it down for us, do you believe in the zombie theory or are there like a gazillion people out there behind the wall that nobody ever seen, that somehow escaped detection?

        Like

      • Dude, the “part of” has nothing to do with corruption. That comes later in his interpretation. Your own scholar just said you are straight up wrong.

        Why, don’t you agree with Qadhi on the zombie theroy? Maybe you go with the undersground wall theory? Or behind the miracously undetected wall theory? Guess we’ll just have to wait for Faiz to break it all down for us.

        I already showed he changed it. Like didn’t you see the commentary I posted? But let’s pull out Asad again.

        “And unto thee [O Prophet] have We vouchsafed this divine writ, setting forth the truth, confirming the truth of whatever there still remains of earlier revelations and determining what is true therein….”

        Even the “critical” reviewer who said SQ is like the best translation and commentary there is around and that the Asad translation is full of gross interpolation and bias.

        Dude, did you miss out the “gross interpolation” it dosen’t say “whatever there still remains of earlier revelations…” that’s just what he made up to make it sound like what he wants, like I said these words is not even in the Arabic. D. made a video where he reads it literally it says “what is between his hands” that is what t what is with them. Your own scholars admit Muhayman means protector and testifying to the validity of the earlier scriptures. Not that the text was corrupted. He could just have translated what the texts says and put the other stuff in the commentary. Yeah, he didn’t make anything up at all.

        Here is the SQ translation and commentary:

        “And We have sent down unto thee the Book in truth, confirming the Book that came before it, and as a protector over it…”

        “This verse addresses the Prophet direvctly and describes the Book sent down to him—that is the Quran—as confirming the Book that came before it, just as the Gospel confirms the Torah. The Quran is also described as “confirming” earlier scriptures in 2:41 , 89 , 91 , 97 , 101 ; 3:3 , 81 ; 6:92 ; 35:31 ; 46:30 . The Quran is further described as a protector (muhaymin) over the previous scriptures, meaxning that the Quran testifies to the validity of the earlier skriptures and serves as their trustee, keeper, and guardian (Tabari, Zamakshari). “Protector” (al-Muhaymin) is also one of the Names of God in the Quran (59:23). The idea of the Quran as guardian and keeper of previous revelations is consistent with 5:41c and 5:45c , which report that the Prophet ordered the sentence of stoning for the two idolaters as well as retribution for killing and injury in order to reestablish the original Torah rulings on these matters”.

        Like

      • @ Jimmy (and his cheerleader Kennywise)

        I have to my enthusiasm have been able to find a portion of Qurtubi translate into English (Uh oh!!!) As I figured you would just call me biased and making things up. Let’s see Qurtubi’s opinion on your fanfiction, starting from 2:79, ahem:

        “Our scholars say that Allah describes the rabbis as changing and altering their Book and Allah says in the next ayat, “Woe to them for what their hands have written!” (2:79) That is because they studied the matter, but their scholars were bad shepherds, greedy for worldly things and so they looked for things to draw people’s attention towards themselves. Therefore they made up new things in their Sharl’a and altered it. They added these inventions to the Torah and told their foolish followers, “This is from
        Allah” so that it would be accepted from them and would establish their power. By so doing they obtained nothing but the rubble and filth of this world… The Torah has: “My rabbis and sons of My Messengers!’. They changed it to “My loved ones and My sons.”

        Now I’m not done here, Jimmy. As you’re “new” around here I’m getting ready to give you your rite of passage which we effectively call a “nuke” so just stay tuned. Let’s keep reading Qurtubi because I really want to drive home NONE of you know wtf they’re talking about:

        “79 Woe to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say ‘This is from Allah’ to sell it for a paltry price. Woe to them for what their hands have written! Woe to them for what they earn!

        with their own hands.
        This is for emphasis because it is well known that writing is done with the hands. This kind of linguistic usage is often used for stress in the Qur’an. The fact that they wrote it also indicates that it was not revealed to them, but they are the ones who fabricated it. This ayat and the one before it warn against making any alterations or changes or additions to the Sharl’a. Anyone who alters, changes or innovates something in the din of Allah which is not in it and not permitted in it, is subject to this terrible threat and
        painful punishment.

        Click to access Tafsir%20al%20Qurtubi%20-%20Vol%20I.pdf

        Mmmmmmm I love making people feel stupid in the morning. But wait we’re not done yet! SQ claimed that Qurtubi stated something in 3:23. Well, what have we here is this Qurtubi’s tafsir?

        “Thirdly, (this is) evidence that our laws are our own…and that we must judge (by) the laws of the prophets before us, as His (God) statement says. But, we do not read the Torah or work with it because those whose hands it’s in are not honest and have changed it and replaced it…He (Muhammad ( peace be upon him)), was aware of what had not (been) changed in it, so he invited them to it and to judge (according to) it. This will be explained (further) in Surah Maidah and the story contained in that, God willing. It has been said (that) this verse was revealed because of that (incident). And God knows best.

        https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=5&tSoraNo=3&tAyahNo=23&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1

        So wait, he said we’re not supposed to use the Torah because it’s corrupt? But Jimmy, Jimmy; SQ and you said I was rejecting what my own scholar said not that I knew you were all stupid… Anyways, so without further ado, welcome to club you najis mushrik. You’ve been disgraced in this life and a worse one awaits you in the Next:

        Liked by 2 people

      • Nuked! Welcome to the club of Christian clowns, with Kennywise as the current president, who don’t know what they’re talking about, Jimmy! 😂😂😂

        Liked by 1 person

Trackbacks

  1. An academic discussion of the claim that Jesus is identified as Yahweh in Mark 1:2-3 – Blogging Theology
  2. Moses wrote about Jesus the Messiah | Apologetics and Agape

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: