10 Reasons the Crucifixion Story Makes No Sense

Bob Seidensticker writes:

I’m afraid that the crucifixion story doesn’t strike me as that big a deal.

The Christian will say that death by crucifixion was a horrible, humiliating way to die. That the death of Jesus was a tremendous sacrifice, more noble and selfless than a person sacrificing himself for the benefit of a butterfly. And isn’t it worth praising something that gets us into heaven?

Here are ten reasons why I’m unimpressed.

1. Sure, death sucks, but why single out this one? Lots of people die. In fact, lots died from crucifixion. The death of one man doesn’t make all the others insignificant. Was Jesus not a man but actually a god? If so, that fact has yet to be shown.

It’s not like this death is dramatically worse than death today. Crucifixion may no longer be a worry, but cancer is. Six hours of agony on the cross is pretty bad, but so is six months of agony from cancer.

2. What about that whole hell thing? An eternity of torment for even a single person makes Jesus’s agony insignificant by comparison, and it counts for nothing when you consider the billions that are apparently going to hell.

3. Jesus didn’t even die. The absurdity of the story, of course, is the resurrection. If Jesus died, there’s no miraculous resurrection, and if there’s a resurrection, there’s no sacrifice through death. Miracle or sacrifice—you can’t have it both ways. The gospels don’t say that he died for our sins but that he had a rough couple of days for our sins.

4. Taking on the sin vs. removal of sin aren’t symmetric. We didn’t do anything to get original sin. We just inherited it from Adam. So why do we have to do anything to get the redemption? If God demands a sacrifice, he got it. That’s enough. Why the requirement to believe to access the solution?

5. The reason behind the sacrifice—mankind’s original sin—makes no sense. Why blame Adam for a moral lapse that he couldn’t even understand? Remember that he hadn’t yet eaten the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, so who could blame him when he made a moral mistake?

And how can we inherit original sin from Adam? Why blame us for something we didn’t do? That’s not justice, and the Bible agrees:

Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin (Deut. 24:16)

6. Jesus made a sacrifice—big deal. Jesus is perfect, so his doing something noble is like water flowing downhill. It’s unremarkable since he’s only acting out his nature. What else would you expect from a perfect being?

But imagine if I sacrificed myself for someone. In the right circumstance, I’d risk my life for a stranger—or at least I hope I would. That kind of sacrifice is very different. A selfish, imperfect man acting against his nature to make the ultimate unselfish sacrifice is far more remarkable than a perfect being acting according to his nature, and yet people make sacrifices for others all the time. So why single out the actions of Jesus? Aren’t everyday noble actions by ordinary people more remarkable and laudable?

7. What is left for God to forgive? The Jesus story says that we’ve sinned against God (a debt). Let’s look at two resolutions to this debt.

(1) God could forgive the debt of sin. You and I are asked to forgive wrongs done against us, so why can’t God? Some Christians say that to forgive would violate God’s sense of justice, but when one person forgives another’s debt, there’s no violation of justice. For unspecified reasons, God doesn’t like this route.

And that leaves (2) where Jesus pays for our sin. But we need to pick 1 or 2, not both. If Jesus paid the debt, there’s no need for God’s forgiveness. There’s no longer anything for God to forgive, since there’s no outstanding debt.

Here’s an everyday example: when I pay off my mortgage, the bank doesn’t in addition forgive my debt. There’s no longer a debt to forgive! Why imagine that God must forgive us after he’s already gotten his payment?

8. The Jesus story isn’t even remarkable within mythology. Jesus’s sacrifice was small compared to the Greek god Prometheus, who stole fire from Olympus and gave it to humanity. Zeus discovered the crime and punished Prometheus by chaining him to a rock so that a vulture could eat his liver. Each night, his liver grew back and the next day the vulture would return, day after agonizing day. The gospel story, where Jesus is crucified once and then pops back into existence several days later, is unimpressive by comparison.

9. The Bible itself rejects God’s savage “justice.” This is the 21st century. Must Iron Age customs persist so that we need a human sacrifice? If God loves us deeply and he wants to forgive us, couldn’t he just … forgive us? That’s how we do it, and that’s the lesson we get from the parable of the Prodigal Son where the father forgives the son even after being wronged by him. If that’s the standard of mercy, why can’t God follow it? Since God is so much greater a being than a human, wouldn’t he be that much more understanding and willing to forgive?

If we were to twist the Prodigal Son parable to match the crucifixion story, the father might demand that the innocent son be flogged to pay for the crime of the prodigal son. Where’s the logic in that?

10. The entire story is incoherent. Let’s try to stumble through the drunken logic behind the Jesus story.

God made mankind imperfect and inherently vulnerable to sin. Living a sinless life is impossible, so hell becomes unavoidable. That is, God creates people knowing for certain that they’re going to deserve eternity in hell when they die. Why create people that he knew would be destined for eternal torment?

But don’t worry—God sacrificed Jesus, one of the persons of God, so mankind could go to heaven instead.

So God sacrificed himself to himself so we could bypass a rule that God made himself and that God deliberately designed us to never be able to meet? I can’t even understand that; I certainly feel no need to praise God for something so nonsensical. It’s like an abused wife thanking her abuser. We can just as logically curse God for consigning us to hell from birth.

Perhaps I can be forgiven for being unimpressed by the crucifixion story.

source



Categories: Christianity, Death, God

Tags:

193 replies

  1. Reblogged this on The Quran and Bible Blog and commented:

    Some good points here!

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Reblogged this on | truthaholics and commented:
    Very incisive and insightful analysis by a former Christian who is now Muslim

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Thank you for sharing!

    //3…. The gospels don’t say that he died for our sins but that he had a rough couple of days for our sins.//

    //7. What is left for God to forgive?//

    The brilliant, Shabir Ally

    Liked by 1 person

  4. The arguments of the writer of the article are weak when biblically put to the test.

    Ally is just begging the question: “God is a despot who takes a ransom when he could have released him anyway.”

    Allah demands his pound of flesh for various sins too, such as apostasy, blasphemy and shirk. And when it comes to theft, literally.

    Like

  5. Holy Scripture says “they crucified the Lord of glory” ( 1 Corinthians 2:8)

    The problem with the article is that the author does not believe in all of Scripture – one has to take all of the relevant verses that show Jesus was a divine person with 2 natures – He was an eternal being, with a Divine Nature also; and He came voluntarily and gave His life as a ransom (to the Father, to pay the price of justice).

    Mark 10:45

    Hebrews 10:10-14

    His sacrifice was an eternal sacrifice:

    Hebrews 9:11-15

    John 10:18 – Jesus the Son came as a willing sacrifice – He came voluntarily. So it is not God the Father being abusive, rather the Son agreed willingly to be the sacrifice, just like Abraham’s son went willingly to be the sacrifice in Genesis 22, which the Qu’ran also affirms – Surah 37:107

    “We have ransomed him with a mighty sacrifice”

    It was mighty and powerful sacrifice and a prophesy of the Messiah’s sacrifice in the future.

    Like

    • Meanwhile, in actual news, most Jewish Rabbis say that the Christian concept of atonement is antithetical to Jewish concepts of God’s mercy.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Actually, the Rabbinic Judaism after 70 AD had to come up with an explanation as to why God allowed the temple to be destroyed; because in the OT, there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood in atonement, which was the purpose of the sacrifices, the tabernacle, and the temple all through the OT.

        You failed. again.

        Like

      • Actually, the Bible clearly stipulates that salvation was achieved through faith in God, not blood atonement.

        “But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. 2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 Those who are wise[a] will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever.” (Daniel 12)

        “For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.” (Hosea 6:6)

        Notice that in Daniel 12, it speaks of the resurrection, but there is nothing about blood atonement. It speaks of the righteous being resurrected to “everlasting life”.

        You failed. Again. What a loser you are!

        Like

  6. John 1:29 – Muslims believe in John the Baptist as a prophet ( He is called “Yahya” یحیی ) “Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.”

    Mark 10:45

    “The Son of man did not come to be served, but to serve and to give His life a ransom (Greek: λυτρον, Farsi = فدا ) for many.” The Farsi versions of this verse have the same root concept of this word, “fada” فدا , from “fedieh” فدیه . (the same root of the word used in the Qur’an, in Surah 37:107 – “We have ransomed him with a mighty sacrifice.”

    John 10:17-18 – Jesus voluntarily , out of love, laid His life down.

    For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father.” John 10:17-18

    Muslims say it is unjust for God to “force” Jesus to die and pay for the sins of others. John 10:18 shows that there is no “forcing” or injustice in this. Jesus willingly and out of love came down from heaven and willingly allowed Himself to be treated unjustly by sinful men, and they killed Him on the cross. (see Acts 2:22-23)

    The cross is where God’s holiness/justice/wrath against sin and His pure love and mercy for sinners meets together. “Loving-kindness and truth have met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other.” (Psalm 85:10)

    John 10:18 shows that the Father and the Son (and the Spirit – see Hebrews 9:14) decided together to accomplish the work of redemption. As Dr. White said in the debate, “Redemption is Trinitarian; the Father, the Son, and the Spirit work together in perfect harmony.” (I am paraphrasing from memory.)

    Revelation 5:9 – God is loving by redeeming people from all nations, peoples, tongues, and tribes. God demonstrates His love by sending His Son to die for us. Romans 5:9

    God is both just (wrath against sin) and the justifier (love for sinners). (Romans 3:24-26) The cross preserves the holiness of God and the love of God together! That truth is beautiful and amazing! In the atonement of Christ, He became flesh (John 1:1, 14) and lived a perfect, sinless life ( 2 Cor. 5:21; John 8:46; Hebrews 4:15; 7:26-27; I Peter 2:22; I John 3:5). Even the Qur’an calls Jesus the Messiah a “faultless”, “sinless son” ( Surah Maryam 19:19). Jesus willingly and voluntarily let Himself be the ransom and sacrifice for human beings from all nations. (Revelation 5:9) (John 10:18; Luke 22:42; John 12:27) He knew He was going to be killed and crucified; and that He would rise from the dead; and He predicted it. (Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:32-34; Matthew 16:21; 17:22; 20:17-19)

    So, ask your Muslim friend, “Do you believe that Al Masih (The Messiah) was sinless?” (Qur’an 19:19) Was Al Masih born of a virgin? (3:45-47; 19:19-21) They must answer: “yes”. He had no human father. He was sinless and born of the virgin Mary.

    Like

  7. The Qur’an also hints at Jesus’ Divine nature, by calling Him the Word of God ( Kalimat’ Allah – کلمه الله ) and “a Spirit from God” = Ruh min Allah” روح من الله

    in Surahs 3, 4, and 19

    Like

    • Rubbish.

      Liked by 2 people

    • My goodness! Does this guy actually even swallow his own garbage?!

      Being the “Word” refers to the Arabic word “kun” (be), as in:

      “The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: “Be”. And he was.”

      Jesus (pbuh) was a created being, just like Adam (pbuh).

      Ken is refuted once again. Isn’t it amazing how far this pagan man-worshiper will go to justify his idolatry? It’s one thing to misquote your own Bible, but don’t try to lie about the Quran, which justifiably condemns your pagan idolatry. Repent Ken, before it’s too late.

      Liked by 3 people

      • So is Adam called “the Word of God” because he was also created by the spoken word of God, “be!” and it became so.

        What about the sun? moon? planets? plants? animals? oxygen? wind? trees? seas? water? chemicals?

        All these things are created at the beginning by the spoken power of God’s command / word.

        You have to come up with a better reason why only Jesus is called “a Word from Allah” and “His Word”.

        کلمه الله

        Like

      • You did not refute anything. You have to come up with a better reason why ONLY Jesus is called “the Word of Allah” since in the beginning of creation, God created all things by His spoken word, “Be!”, and “it was so”.

        could it be that the author of the Qur’an heard the Christians talking about Jesus as the Word, from John 1:1-5; 1:14 and Revelation 19:13 and I John 1:1, etc. ?

        Yes, that is the reason – already established 600 years earlier.

        And since the Qur’an affirms the Injeel, the NT, the only book the Christians had (book of 27 books), this shows that Jesus is the eternal Word, His nature is God.

        Surah 10:94 – “if you are in doubt about what we are revealing to you, go and ask the people who have been reading the Scriptures before you.”

        Surah 5:47

        Surah 5:68

        These and many other verses show that the Scriptures the Christians had at the time was the NT.

        Like

      • John Gilchrist said it well:

        ” Jesus is also called “His word” in Surah 4:171, meaning the Word of God. In Surah 3:45 we also read that the angels said to Mary “Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a word from Him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary”. More than once in the Qur’an, therefore, Jesus is called God’s Word. He is also called the Word of God in the Bible.

        “He is clad in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God”. (Revelation 19:13)

        Once again, therefore, Jesus is given a title in the Qur’an which the Bible gives him as well. Like the title Messiah this is a very distinctive and exalted title. Whether we take it in its actual Biblical form, “The Word of God”, or in its actual Qur’anic forms, “a Word from God” and “God’s Word”, two things are strikingly and abundantly clear. Jesus himself, in his actual person, is the Word; and the source, origin and the fountainhead of the Word is God.

        As with the title Messiah, the Qur’an gives no explanation of the title. Nevertheless, in seeking to reconcile it with the Qur’anic assertion that Jesus was only a messenger, Muslim commentators generally have claimed that Jesus is called the Word of God solely in accordance with the teaching in the Qur’an that he was created in the womb of a virgin-woman by the Word of God:

        “She said: My Lord!! How can I have a child when no mortal hath touched me? He said: So it will be. Allah createth what He will, if He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only; Be! and it is.” (Surah 3:47)

        By the single word of God “Be”, it is alleged that Jesus was created and from this verse Muslim commentators have concluded that this is why Jesus is called the Word of God. It is a convenient but inadequate conclusion. According to that verse, this is how anything is created by God. But Jesus alone receives the title Word of God and its unique character must compel us to reject this theory as over-simplistic. Secondly it is exposed further as being an insufficient answer to the question of its meaning by a simple consideration of a similar statement just twelve verses later in the same Surah:

        “Lo! the likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam, He created him from dust, then He said unto him, Be! and he is”. (Surah 3:59)

        Once again it is said of Jesus that he was created by God purely through the expression “Be” but this time it is said that “the likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam”, implying that both were made by the single word of God “Be” in the same way. If Jesus is called the Word of God purely as a result of the manner of his conception, then Adam too must be the Word of God for according to the Qur’an they were both created in the same manner. Now a real difficulty arises because Adam is not called the Word of God in the Qur’an. Nor are the angels, nor is any other creature so called in the Qur’an. Jesus alone is called the Word of God.

        The very exceptional nature of the title, by which Jesus is distinguished from all other men and all creatures, demands that there is some other meaning and significance behind it. The very fact that the title is given to Jesus alone in both the Qur’an and the Bible clearly shows that there is something about the person of Jesus that makes him the Word of God in a way in which no other man or creature can compare. Jesus himself is called the Word of God and the title relates to his person and not to any feature or circumstance of his life.

        As mentioned earlier, one of the distinctive features of this title is the emphasis of deity as the source of the person who bears it. The Word is from God. And the title Word implies that he is the communication and revelation, in his own person, of God to men. The Word of God is one who indeed is actively the real manifestation of God to men. To know him is to know God. He does not merely bring the religion and words of God to men, he himself is the word and revelation of God, Jesus himself made this clear when he said:

        “He who has seen me has seen the Father”. (John 14:9)

        Let us now turn to the plain teaching of the Bible about Jesus as the Word of God. The prologue to the Gospel of John gives us a clear explanation of the title:

        “In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God. And the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him and without him was not anything made that was made”. (John 1:1-3)

        To emphasize strongly that Jesus himself is the Word of God and not that God’s word is somehow related to him as is suggested by the major Muslim commentators, let us briefly paraphrase those two verses:

        In the beginning before God ever began to create, the Word already existed. Far from being part of the created order, the Word was in the realm of God and indeed the very nature of the Word was that of God. When God first began to fashion the created order, the Word already existed in the divine order. He himself was not created but all other things were created by God through him as agent, indeed as the very Word of God. Because he alone is the Word of God, and is therefore the sole means of communication between God and his creatures, nothing was created without being created by and through him. (John 1:1-2)

        The clear teaching of the Bible is that Jesus existed as the Word of God before God ever created anything and that he is therefore deity. But then the Word of God became the man Jesus, the son of Mary.

        “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth”. (John 1:14)

        Jesus is the Word of God not because of any intervention by God at his conception nor by any other circumstances. He always was, from all eternity, the Word of God before he took on human flesh and became the man Jesus, the son of Mary.”

        you are refuted.

        Like

      • “So is Adam called “the Word of God” because he was also created by the spoken word of God, “be!” and it became so.

        What about the sun? moon? planets? plants? animals? oxygen? wind? trees? seas? water? chemicals?

        All these things are created at the beginning by the spoken power of God’s command / word.

        You have to come up with a better reason why only Jesus is called “a Word from Allah” and “His Word”.””

        LOL!! Kenny’s stupidity is exposed yet again!

        Abraham (pbuh) was called the “Friend of Allah”. Does that mean that only he was Allah’s “friend” and none of the other prophets? Silly Kenny. When will you learn?

        “Behold! the angels said: “O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah;”

        He was the “Word” that was given to Mary as an announcement of his birth. All of this proves that he was a created being, nothing more. Your idolatry is refuted. Give up your paganism, you heathen blasphemer.

        Liked by 2 people

      • You and your fellow idiot Gilchrist are exposed as morons who take verses out of context. Poor, poor heathens.

        Like

  8. Ken said “The Qur’an also hints at Jesus’ Divine nature, by calling Him the Word of God ( Kalimat’ Allah – کلمه الله ) and “a Spirit from God” = Ruh min Allah” روح من الله”

    More likely the writer of the Koran doesn’t know himself what he means by the words. Nor does he want to know. He is probably just trying to steal concepts that he knows are important in the NT and incorporate them in to the islamic constellation of things. That explains much of what is contained in the Koran. For the writer it is actually better just to leave the words unexplained. He had no intention of attempting to do so.

    According to the Koran Jesus was a ghost pretending to be human. That fits with the islamic explanation of the crucifixion.

    Like

    • Hmmm, perhaps Iggy should actually try to learn something before putting all of us through the painful experience of having to listen to his idiotic theories.

      It’s actually quite simple, Iggy. The Quran calls Jesus a “word” because he was created by God’s command, as Adam (pbut) was. What was that command? It was a “word”:

      “The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: “Be”. And he was.”

      Ignorance is bliss, eh Iggy? 😉

      Liked by 1 person

      • I see. The writer of the Koran doesn’t know the difference between cause and effect. And there are differences between the creation of Jesus and Adam.

        How can anyone speak to someone who is not yet created?

        “And he said to him be and he was”

        He created him then said to him be? But if he is already created what is left to become?

        And this is supposed to be the miracle of the Koran?

        It is still has a long way to go to be a miracle.

        Like

      • I see. You were humiliated for the 1000th time, but still cling to your debunked theory.

        Jesus, like Adam, was created by God’s command, outside of the natural order. That is the point of God saying “be”. Adam was created without any parents, essentially from scratch. Jesus, in a slightly less miraculous way (but still miraculous), was created without a father.

        The creative act refers to the formation of the body and soul and then both combining as a living person. The “be” refers to him becoming alive, stupid. It’s really not that difficult to understand, unless you deliberately make it your business not to understand. Truly, ignorance is bliss for you isn’t it?

        Like

  9. Ken, I have no idea why you keep jumping from place to place with these bizarre comments!

    The article is about how this idea that god has to die for our sins is really nonsensical in its own merit. If we add the textual criticism and the historical background for the idea, nothing really remains for christians to argue about.

    You are telling muslims that god created us as cursed created beings. Therefore, God has to come out from a vagina then to be crucified naked so that he can forgive us!
    This is how christians make sense for all this universe and why we are here! How absurd! Fear Allah عز و جل
    This is not different from telling someone that 1=3!
    It’s a against Fitrah! It’s darkness!

    It’s the time to accept Islam. You need to accept Islam and to worship the God of Jesus alone!
    “For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.” Hosea 6:6

    Liked by 4 people

    • Yahweh must have been drunk when he said that he doesn’t desire burnt offerings. Apparently, he forgot that his plan all along was to come down as a man and offer himself as a voluntary sacrifice..to himself. Er, right?

      Like

      • Problem is you have to explain all the details of sacrifices for atonement and forgiveness in the Torah – the first 5 books, and the temple.

        Obviously, Hosea 6:6 does not mean to do away with the sacrifices in the temple (at the time, temple is still standing in Jerusalem).

        He means that God does not like it when people just go through the motions of doing religious ritual without heart repentance and faith. (as also in Isaiah 1:10-11 and other passages similar to Hosea 6:6)

        Like

      • “He means that God does not like it when people just go through the motions of doing religious ritual without heart repentance”
        Then why do we find all this so emphasis on the blood matter which is a ritual thing in your religion to a level you have deformed the concept of what God is.
        If God doesn’t really put that emphasis on the blood as he said repeatedly, then who are you to do so?
        “The sacrifice you desire is a broken spirit. You will not reject a broken and repentant heart, O God” Psalm 51:17
        “The LORD is more pleased when we do what is right and just than when we offer him sacrifices” Proverbs 21:3

        On the other hand, you tell us that that there’s no salvation without the blood. In fact, some christians say once you accept that blood to be offered on behalf of you, you will not lose your salvation!
        How can that be different for what God had been complaining about jews !?
        Isn’t that ironic? While christians have a negative attitude towards religious ritual, they have built the whole of their religion on a corner stone called “sacrifice” with most vived pagan image we could ever imagine!

        Liked by 1 person

      • “Problem is you have to explain all the details of sacrifices for atonement and forgiveness in the Torah – the first 5 books, and the temple.

        Obviously, Hosea 6:6 does not mean to do away with the sacrifices in the temple (at the time, temple is still standing in Jerusalem).

        He means that God does not like it when people just go through the motions of doing religious ritual without heart repentance and faith. (as also in Isaiah 1:10-11 and other passages similar to Hosea 6:6)”

        No, what is actually meant is that blood is not what saves. Repentance saves. Faith in God saves.

        The problem is that your pagan concept of atonement does not match what is found in the Tanakh. First of all, human sacrifice is forbidden. Your mangod supposedly had two natures, one of which was human. Second, the “sin offering” was supposed to be a female goat or lamb (Lev. 4:27ff). So here, the “details” further destroy your religion. Your mangod was not a female, but a male.

        Liked by 1 person

  10. You cannot handle the argument about only Jesus being called “the Word of God”, so you ignored it and jumped to about Abraham being called the friend of God. But Jesus, the eternal Word, says all the believers are His friends. (John 14 and 15)

    John 15:13-15

    In Judges 5:31 the Scripture calls all the believers the friends of God. (ESV)

    “So may all your enemies perish, O Lord!
    But your friends be like the sun as he rises in his might.”
    Judges 5:31 ESV

    So you are refuted.

    And you still need to explain why only Jesus of Nazareth is called “the Word of God”, and since it harmonizes with John 1:1-5; 1:14; Revelation 19:13 and 1 John 1:1, and since those passages are established 600 years before the Qur’an, and since the Qur’an affirms the previous Scriptures (5:46; 5:68; 10:94; 2:136, etc.)
    . . . why?

    Liked by 1 person

    • LOL, Kenny the broken record cannot logically refute me, so what does he do? Just mindlessly repeat the same garbage.

      I already explained all this. Don’t blame me for your incompetence. Jesus was called the “word” because he was created by the command “be”. His birth was then announced to his mother. However, that does not mean that he was divine. You are so stupid and blinded by your heathenism that you try to make an indefensible argument against the Quran! How can Jesus (pbuh) be divine when he was created by God? Have you no sense, heathen? Have you no dignity? Why embarrass yourself like this? Is your paganism really worth it?

      Like

      • Plus overwhelming majority of translations don’t say:
        “But your friends be like the sun…”
        Friends isn’t actually mentioned. And your appeal to John 15 is nonsensical since saying friends of Jesus doesn’t mean friends of God since he WASN’T God.
        And why even quote your bible to begin with? We were talking about why the QUR’AN calls Jesus the Word and no one else. The response about Abraham being called the friend of Allah should be looked from a Qur’anic perspective since we are trying to figure out what the Qur’an’s stand on this whole issue is. Not what the bible’s stand on it is.

        Liked by 2 people

      • And you still need to explain why only Jesus of Nazareth is called “the Word of God”, and since it harmonizes with John 1:1-5; 1:14; Revelation 19:13 and 1 John 1:1, and since those passages are established 600 years before the Qur’an, and since the Qur’an affirms the previous Scriptures (5:46; 5:68; 10:94; 2:136, etc.)
        . . . why?

        Like

      • Already explained. What your Bible says is irrelevant. Jesus being the “word” proves that he was created. Thus, he cannot be God.

        Like

  11. The Bible teaches BOTH heart repentance AND blood atonement / sacrifices / ransom / substitutionary atonement:

    1. Heart Repentance:

    17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;
    A broken and a contrite heart, O God, You will not despise.

    18 By Your favor do good to Zion;
    Build the walls of Jerusalem.

    2. AND BLOOD ATONEMENT / Ransom / Sacrifice:

    19 Then You will delight in righteous sacrifices,
    In burnt offering and whole burnt offering;
    Then young bulls will be offered on Your altar.

    Psalm 51:17-19

    And the Qur’an affirms both ransom (substitution) and sacrifice (bloody slaughter)
    Surah 37:1-7

    “We have ransomed him with a mighty sacrifice.”

    The Qur’an could not help but accidentally affirming blood atonement/ sacrifice for forgiveness, because it got it’s information from the previous religions, but did not know the details, since Muhammad could not read and then later, after conquering the Byzantine Empire’s eastern half, and later Muslims finding out the details . . . they said, “oops!” “We have to come up with other explanations as to why our prophet was so ignorant of the previous revelations.” oops . . .

    Like

    • This is called ignorant polemics nothing more.

      Liked by 3 people

      • None of you can refute that in context, Psalm 51:17-19 teaches both heart repentance and blood sacrifice:

        Psalm 51:19

        19 Then You will delight in righteous sacrifices,
        In burnt offering and whole burnt offering;
        Then young bulls will be offered on Your altar.

        No one has refuted that at all.

        Like

      • It still refutes Christianity. Since the temple sacrifices were to “delight” your god, there was no need for him to come down and act as a sacrifice to himself.

        And since Leviticus 5 clearly establishes that blood is not an absolute requirement in all cases, it refutes the moronic Christian obsession with blood atonement. The Tanakh completely refutes Christianity.

        Like

    • Mindless repetition. I think Kenny is just trying to convince himself of his heathen ways. He knows reasonable people don’t buy his BS. But since he is too proud to admit that he is wrong, he would rather keep on worshiping his idol instead of repenting and worshiping the One, True God.

      Liked by 1 person

  12. “Aaron shall make atonement on its horns once a year; he shall make atonement on it with the blood of the sin offering of atonement once a year throughout your generations. It is most holy to the Lord.”

    Exodus 30:10

    Like

    • LOL!! Kenny just refuted Christianity once again!

      Notice that it says “throughout your generations”. In other words, according to the Tanakh, the temple sacrifices are for ALL times! Therefore, there is no need for a mangod to die for our sins. Christianity is refuted! Thank you Kenny!

      Now be a good boy and repent of your idolatry. It will lead to only one final destination: the fire.

      Like

      • The point of Exodus 30:10, which proves the seriousness of blood atoning sacrifice for forgiveness; is that atonement / blood sacrifice is an eternal principle (throughout your generations, it is most holy), and since the NT teaches that Jesus is the final eternal sacrifice, then He is the fulfillment of the sacrificial system in the Torah.

        And you have to explain why God allowed the temple to be destroyed 40 years after Jesus’ ransom sacrifice on the cross; and why John the Baptizer ( Yahya یحیی ), whom you are obligated to believe, taught that in the Messiah Jesus, all the sacrifices of the old covenant are fulfilled in Him, as He is “the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” John 1:29 Jesus fulfilled Genesis 22:7-8 (where is the lamb for the sacrifice? God will provide . . . ) and Exodus 12 (the Passover Lamb_ – see 1 Cor. 5:7).

        So, it is obvious that Hosea 6:6 or Isaiah 1:10-15 or Psalm 40:6 does not mean a total rejection of all sacrifices, because that would contradict the rest of the OT with all the details about sacrifice and atonement and forgiveness through blood sacrifices. Rather, it means, in context, that just doing the rituals without also having heart repentance is empty dead rituals.

        So you are refuted again.

        Like

      • HAHAHAHA, the mindless robot realized he got schooled as usual! Your appeal to Exodus 30:10 backfired since it clearly says that the temple sacrifice was for all times. This is either a false prophecy, which refutes both Judaism and Christianity, or it contradicts the mangod mythology of Christianity, in which case it refutes it only.

        The book of Ezekiel states that the temple is supposed to be rebuilt again for all time. Of course, I don’t believe that but it is sufficient to destroy the foundation of Christianity. There was no need for your mangod to die because the temple rites were for all times. So you and your religion are refuted again.

        Liked by 3 people

  13. Also, the Qur’an Yahya (John the Baptizer) as a prophet.

    And he said:

    “Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” John 1:29

    Like

    • According to the gospel of John (which was not written by John), John the Baptist (pbuh) denied being the Messiah or the “Prophet”. They were two different people. Thus, if Jesus (pbuh) was the Messiah, he could not be the Prophet. So who was the Prophet. It seems clear that the only one who fits the bill is Muhammad (pbuh).

      Thanks again for confirming Islam and refuting Christianity, Kenny!

      Like

      • Holy Scripture tells us that Jesus was both the Messiah (in all 4 gospels and the rest of NT) and “that prophet” in Acts 3:19-23, as he quotes from Deuteronomy 18:15, 18-19:

        19 Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord;
        20 and that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you,
        21 whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time.
        22 Moses said, ‘The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brethren; to Him you shall give heed to everything He says to you.
        23 And it will be that every soul that does not heed that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.’

        And the Gospel according to John was written by the apostle John, an eyewitness of Jesus’ ministry, crucifixion, death, and resurrection, and inspired by the Holy Spirit. It is holy God-breathed Scripture, established 600 years before your false prophet and un-inspired book came along.

        So, you are refuted, again.

        Like

      • “”””And the Gospel according to John was written by the apostle John, an eyewitness of…””””

        Does this guy never get tired of the crap he utters?
        It wasn’t written by John the apostle. It was written by John doe. Good Lord!
        Stop this crap already. Nt books have ZERO eyewitness accounts. ZERO.

        And it’s hilarious how he ends it with saying:
        “So, you are refuted, again.”

        Loool!

        Liked by 2 people

      • “Holy Scripture tells us that Jesus was both the Messiah (in all 4 gospels and the rest of NT) and “that prophet” in Acts 3:19-23, as he quotes from Deuteronomy 18:15, 18-19:”

        Thank you again for refuting Christianity! Your so-called “scripture” contradicts itself. John the Baptist denied that he was the Messiah or the Prophet. If they were both the same person, then the Jews would not have asked him if he was one and then ask if he was the other. It would have been redundant.

        “And the Gospel according to John was written by the apostle John, an eyewitness of Jesus’ ministry, crucifixion, death, and resurrection, and inspired by the Holy Spirit. It is holy God-breathed Scripture, established 600 years before your false prophet and un-inspired book came along.

        So, you are refuted, again.”

        LOL!! You are just too funny! You didn’t refute anything! All you did was utter the same useless and unproven claims. Your mindless and robotic babble proves nothing and impresses no one. I showed why your satanic church’s lies do not line up with the facts. And you have shown once again that you are a self-deluded weasel who follows a manmade book written by other self-deluded weasels.

        Like

      • Atlas, Kenny has his head so far up his rear-end that it will probably take till Judgement Day to come out. Of course, it won’t matter then.

        Like

    • On the authorship of the Gospel of “John”:

      First and foremost is the fact that the gospel does not state who the author is. It is anonymous (more on this later). Second, it is possible that the author was simply another “John” who later became confused with John the disciple. It was claimed by Eusebius that Papias had claimed that the author was a certain “John the Elder”, who had known Jesus and heard him teach.[50] Yet even this theory clearly suffers from the same problem as claiming that the author was John the son Zebedee. It is all hearsay. Smith refers to it as “at best a reasonable conjecture based on bits and pieces of evidence”.[51]

      Another difficulty in assigning authorship to John is the claim that he wrote the gospel while residing in Ephesus. Here, church tradition seems to have muddied the water. While Irenaeus claimed the gospel was written in Ephesus, an earlier source, Ignatius of Antioch, did not mention that John resided at Ephesus at any time. Smith observed that Ignatius “makes a great deal of the apostle Paul’s residence there, but, strangely, does not mention John”.[52] To make matters worse, neither the New Testament nor any early 2nd-century Christian document puts John in Ephesus.[53]

      Finally, in an interesting analysis of chapter 20, Smith argued that the author intentionally remained anonymous. Smith also surmised that if any of the disciples of Jesus qualified as the “beloved disciple”, it would have been Thomas, not John.[54] Since chapter 21 seems to be a later addition,[55] and since Thomas is the last disciple mentioned at the end of chapter 20, it follows then he should qualify as the “beloved disciple”, at least in the “original” ending of the gospel. Even if chapter 21 was the original ending, Smith, quoting David R. Beck (who believed 21:24-25 was the end of the gospel), notes that there is simply no specific disciple who is identified as the “beloved disciple”, so that “he remains anonymous, as the evangelist intended”.[56] But if the author really was John the son of Zebedee or any other disciple, why did he go out of his way to remain anonymous? If anything, it would bolster the credibility and authority of the gospel to directly name a specific disciple, but instead, the author deliberately decided to be anonymous. It does not make much sense. Therefore, in the absence of any conclusive evidence, the theory of Johannine authorship of the fourth gospel stands on thin ice. Most likely, it was just a misattribution, as with the Synoptics.

      https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2019/02/19/john-52-and-the-date-of-the-fourth-gospel-a-response-to-a-christian-apologist/

      Like

  14. Abdullah1234 wrote:
    You are telling muslims that god created us as cursed created beings.

    Actually, there is good evidence that the curse of Allah in expelling Adam and Eve from paradise included their offspring – as several Islamic commentators testify – Ibn Kathir, Jalalayn, and Yusuf Ali. It seems that Islam also has evidence for some kind of original sin and corruption that is spread into Adam and Eve’s offspring. So original sin did not stop with Adam, and Mr. Williams forgot verse 36 and 38 that is the context around verse 37. Even if Allah forgave them in verse 37, the verses around them show that the Qur’an actually teaches some kind of inherited sin that goes to their offspring and affects all of human kind.

    فازلهما الشيطان عنها فاخرجهما مما كانا فيه وقلنا اهبطوا بعضكم لبعض عدو ولكم في الارض مستقر ومتاع الى حين
    SAHIH INTERNATIONAL
    But Satan caused them to slip out of it and removed them from that [condition] in which they had been. And We said, “Go down, [all of you], as enemies to one another, and you will have upon the earth a place of settlement and provision for a time.”

    Surah 2:36

    قلنا اهبطوا منها جميعا فاما ياتينكم مني هدى فمن تبع هداي فلا خوف عليهم ولا هم يحزنون

    SAHIH INTERNATIONAL
    We said, “Go down from it, all of you. And when guidance comes to you from Me, whoever follows My guidance – there will be no fear concerning them, nor will they grieve.
    Surah 2:38

    “all of you” is جمیعا – a clear understanding of more than 2. We have this in Farsi also which means “all” and it comes from root verb of Jam’e جمع , which means “to collect”, “to sum up”, “to add”, “to gather up” (more than one thing). It is also used of a Mosque/ Masjid – “Jami” – the place of gathering together” and the word for Friday, جمعه – comes that root – the day to gather and go to worship at the Masjid. Masjid means the “place of bowing down” and Jami means the place of gathering.

    It it interesting to me the the word اهبطوا (go down, descend) – in Farsi we get the word for “the fall” of mankind from this root – هبوط

    that they would go down to the earth and become enemies to each other.

    اهبطوا بعضكم لبعض عدو
    Literally “some of you to some of you become enemies of one another”. (verse 36) بعضی ، بعض – we have this word in Farsi, meaning “some”. Seems to include more than just Adam and Eve!

    Here is the commentary of Ibn Kathir regarding Qur’an, Surah 2:38-39:

    “Allah informs of His warning to Adam, his wife and Satan, their offspring, when he ordered them to descend from Paradise. He says he will send messengers with Scriptures, signs and proofs… ”

    (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Part 1, Surah Al-Fatiah Surah Al-Baqarah, ayat 1 to 141, Abridged by Sheikh Nasib Ar-Rafa‘i [Al-Firdous Ltd., London: Second Edition 1998], pp. 109-110; bold emphasis mine)

    Also, the late Abdullah Yusuf Ali (one of the most, if not the most, standard English versions of the Qur’an) in his commentary in the footnotes of Surah 2:36, footnote 53, page 17.

    “… Note the transition in Arabic from the singular number in ii. 33, to the dual in ii. 35, and the plural here [2:36], which I have indicated in English by ‘All ye people.’ Evidently Adam is the type of all mankind, and the sexes go together in all spiritual matters. Moreover, the expulsion applied to Adam, Eve, and Satan, and the Arabic plural is appropriate for any number greater than two.” (Abdullah Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur’an: English Translation of the meanings and Commentary, The Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Fahd, Saudi Arabia, 1413 Hegira, footnote 53, page 17). bolding my emphasis

    Ibn Kathir wrote in commenting on Surah 2:34:

    “This Ayah mentions the great honor that Allah granted Adam, and Allah reminded Adam’s offspring of this fact. Allah commanded the angels to prostrate before Adam, as this Ayah and many Hadiths testify, such as the Hadith about the intercession that we discussed. There is a Hadith about the supplication of Musa, “O my Lord! Show me Adam who caused us and himself to be thrown out of Paradise.” When Musa met Adam, he said to him, “Are you Adam whom Allah created with His Own Hands, blew life into and commanded the angels to prostrate before?” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged) (Surat Al-Fatihah to Verse 252 of Surat Al-Baqarah), abridged by a group of scholars under the supervision of Shaykh Safiur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh, Houston, New York, Lahore; First Edition: January 2000], Parts 1 and 2, Volume 1, p. 193; bold emphasis mine)

    Jalalayn’s commentary:

    “Then Satan, Iblīs, caused them to slip, he caused them to be removed (fa-azallahumā: a variant reading has fa-azālahumā: he caused them to be away from it) therefrom, that is, from the Garden, when he said to them, ‘Shall I point you to the tree of eternity’ [cf. Q. 20:120], and swore to them by God that he was only giving good advice to them, and so they ate of it; and brought them out of what they were in, of bliss; and We said, ‘Go down, to earth, both of you and all those comprised by your seed; some of you, of your progeny, an enemy to the other, through your wronging one another; and in the earth a dwelling, a place of settlement, shall be yours, and enjoyment, of whatever of its vegetation you may enjoy, for a while’, [until] the time your terms [of life] are concluded.”
    (Tafsir al-Jalalayn, Q. 2:36; bold emphasis mine)

    These Islamic commentaries and Hadith seem to understand the Islamic sources as including the offspring of Adam and Eve and spreading to all humankind.

    Like

    • Nothing in these commentaries support your fanatic idea that we are born cursed and that’s why we need God to die for us! Why are you lying?

      Liked by 2 people

      • And We said, “Go down, [all of you], as enemies to one another, and you will have upon the earth a place of settlement and provision for a time.”

        Surah 2:36

        “Go down as enemies of one another” demonstrates the nature of humans – sinful, selfish, violent, prideful – all of history of anger, conflict, fights, wars, etc. proves this. It is obvious that the Qur’an and those Hadith passages and also the Islamic commentaries, could not get away from the implications of the doctrine of original sin.

        Like

      • Again with the idiotic eisegesis? Read the next verses, dummy.

        “Then Adam received from his Lord [some] words, and He accepted his repentance. Indeed, it is He who is the Accepting of repentance, the Merciful. We said, “Go down from it, all of you. And when guidance comes to you from Me, whoever follows My guidance – there will be no fear concerning them, nor will they grieve.”

        This refutes the original sin rubbish. God sent guidance to Adam and Eve and also forgave them. As long as they and all people followed God’s guidance, they had the hope of salvation.

        Liked by 1 person

      • To further demolish Kenny’s silly eisegesis, here is Ibn Kathir’s commentary:

        “(Then Adam received from his Lord Words) “Adam said, `O Lord! Did You not create me with Your Own Hands’ He said, `Yes.’ He said, `And blow life into me’ He said, `Yes.’ He said, `And when I sneezed, You said, `May Allah grant you His mercy.’ Does not Your mercy precede Your anger’ He was told, `Yes.’ Adam said, `And You destined me to commit this evil act’ He was told, `Yes.’ He said, `If I repent, will You send me back to Paradise’ Allah said, `Yes.”’ Similar is reported from Al-`Awfi, Sa`id bin Jubayr, Sa`id bin Ma`bad, and Ibn `Abbas. Al-Hakim recorded this Hadith in his Mustadrak from Ibn Jubayr, who narrated it from Ibn `Abbas. Al-Hakim said, “Its chain is Sahih and they (Al-Bukhari and Muslim) did not record it.””

        So Adam’s sin was forgiven. We can relegate Christianity and its ludicrous concept of original sin to the dustbin.

        Like

    • Kenny, there is something wrong with your head. Seriously. Your idiotic non-sequiturs only prove one thing: that you are a self-deluded little weasel.

      It’s very easy to refute your idiocy. The Quran says:

      “And [mention, O Muhammad], when your Lord said to the angels, “Indeed, I will make upon the earth a successive authority.” They said, “Will You place upon it one who causes corruption therein and sheds blood, while we declare Your praise and sanctify You?” Allah said, “Indeed, I know that which you do not know.” (2:30)

      So, it was always God’s plan to place mankind on the earth. Adam and Eve were never meant to stay in the garden forever. They were supposed to live on earth for an appointed time. It has nothing to do with the nonsense of original sin. This is another invention of heathen Christians and their demonic religion. I demolished this concept here: https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2017/07/27/born-a-sinner-a-critical-investigation-of-the-origin-of-original-sin/

      Liked by 1 person

      • you did not refute the doctrine of original sin at all.

        Do you even know what hyssop is?

        Can you show me how hyssop relates to Numbers 9 ?

        You need to research Exodus 12 and Numbers 19 where hyssop is used.

        It was a tree branch used as a brush to spread the blood on the door posts on the Passover (see Exodus 12:22) and also, in Numbers 9 and 19 ( the details of 19 explain what is going on in chapter 9) to dip into the water with the ashes of the Red Heifer, which was first sacrificed as a blood sacrifice, then burnt, then the ashes mixed in water; then the hyssop branch is used like a brush to cleanse those who touched dead carcasses in Numbers 19 and 9.

        David, in Psalm 51, is confessing and repenting of the sin of adultery with Bathsheba, but he is also teaching us about the roots of adultery – the sinful nature in the heart, which we have from conception/birth. (Psalm 51:5) Jesus also taught this in Matthew 5:27-30 – lust and fantasies are the roots of physical adultery.

        Also, Psalm 58:3 clearly teaches original sin in the Tanakh, along with Psalm 51:5 and Genesis 6:5; 8:21; Jeremiah 17:9, etc.

        Psalm 58:3
        The wicked are estranged from the womb;
        These who speak lies go astray from birth.

        The rest of the Bible after the fall of Adam and Eve shows the spread of human sin, selfishness, pride (Tower of Babel), violence, jealousies (Cain) (the jealous rivalries between the wives and concubines of Jacob, etc.), murder (Cain vs. Abel- Genesis 4), lies (Abraham and Isaac tell lies in a selfish way about their wives to protect themselves, not their wives in Genesis 12, 20, 26, etc.), drunkenness (Noah – Genesis 9), homosexuality (Sodom and Ghomorah – Genesis 19), etc. and how it continues to this day in the heart of mankind. The writer of Genesis is obviously showing that sin is deep in the heart of mankind.

        “Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” Genesis 6:5

        So, your whole article on original sin is refuted.

        Like

      • LOL, you didn’t refute anything! The point of mentioning the hyssop ritual was to show that the sin could be removed.

        You also ignored the fact that elsewhere, David described himself as being “blameless”:

        “I have been blameless before him and have kept myself from sin. The Lord has rewarded me according to my righteousness, according to my cleanness in his sight.”

        This again destroys your original sin nonsense. How was David “blameless” if he, like everyone else, had the taint of original sin on him?

        Give it up, heathen. Your made-up theology is condemned by your own scripture. Have some dignity and reject your heathen ways.

        Like

  15. Abdullah1234 wrote:

    Therefore, God has to come out from a vagina then to be crucified naked so that he can forgive us!

    Why did you write it like that? Don’t you believe Jesus was born of the virgin Mary and came out of her vagina, when he was a baby and born into this world, and that he (Jesus) is a great prophet?

    So what is the problem with that? If God wants to become human to save us, (John 1:1-5; 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8; Hebrews 2:14-18), why can’t He do that?

    There is nothing dirty about the body (or sex within marriage), as God created these things. Since we agree Jesus was born of the virgin Mary, and Jesus is called “the Word of God” by the Qur’an also ( Surah 4:171; 3:45)

    Again:
    “If Jesus is called the Word of God purely as a result of the manner of his conception, then Adam too must be the Word of God for according to the Qur’an they were both created in the same manner. Now a real difficulty arises because Adam is not called the Word of God in the Qur’an. Nor are the angels, nor is any other creature so called in the Qur’an. Jesus alone is called the Word of God.

    The very exceptional nature of the title, by which Jesus is distinguished from all other men and all creatures, demands that there is some other meaning and significance behind it. The very fact that the title is given to Jesus alone in both the Qur’an and the Bible clearly shows that there is something about the person of Jesus that makes him the Word of God in a way in which no other man or creature can compare. Jesus himself is called the Word of God and the title relates to his person and not to any feature or circumstance of his life.” (from John Gilchrist, from longer quote above, which Faiz failed to deal with)

    Like

    • “””Why did you write it like that? Don’t you believe Jesus was born of the virgin Mary and came out of her vagina, when he was a baby and born into this world, and that he (Jesus) is a great prophet?

      So what is the problem with that? If God wants to become human to save us, (John 1:1-5; 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8; Hebrews 2:14-18), why can’t He do that?”””
      You’re one sick individual. You know full well what we intend to say. A human baby being borb out of a woman’s private part is normal and natural. It is SICK to say sucha thinh about God.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Don’t give me your o o he was hooman so it is all dandy crap.
      You believe in a self contradiction about being fully man and God so when jesus says or does something we have to apply it to both “natures”. God doesn’t get squeezed out of a vagina. You people are SICK.

      And you still can’t get over the fact you got refuted.
      Just because someone is named the Word of God doesn’t necessitate that everyone else must be named to. It’s a title God gave explicitly to Jesus just like the title friend of God was given only to Abraham. Q&B already mentioned this.

      Liked by 2 people

    • //Why did you write it like that? Don’t you believe Jesus was born of the virgin Mary and came out of her vagina, when he was a baby and born into this world, and that he (Jesus) is a great prophet?//
      We are talking about God! God of this universe, man! Do you understand what God means?
      «Exalted is He and high above what they say by great sublimity.» QT.

      Jesus is a human being! He came out from a vagina! God doesn’t!

      Liked by 4 people

      • @ Abdullah1234
        Jesus is a human being! He came out from a vagina! God doesn’t!

        That’s the smartest thing I’ve read this entire thread. If I may continue in this line of thought, if God is now this newborn, as he drinks from his mother’s (who He created) breast and sits there defecating on Himself. Did his mother (who He created) then teach him his ABCs etc? If not, then is He still All-Knowing?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jesus is also God the eternal Son (John 17:5), the eternal Word (John 1:1-5, 1:14); and He can become a human in the womb of Mary if He wants to, for our salvation. He is humble and kind and willingly came and was born of the virgin Mary.

        Beautiful truth and grace and mercy.

        The 2nd person of the Trinity became human.

        Like

      • Exalted, yes; and He willingly came and humbled Himself.

        Beautiful.

        Philippians 2:5-9

        Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,
        6 who, although He existed in the form (nature) of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
        7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.
        8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
        9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name,

        Like

      • What Christians always overlook is this verse:

        ‘For this reason also, God highly exalted him..’

        God exalted Jesus. Two separate beings.

        Philippians 2:5-9 proves Jesus is not God.

        Liked by 1 person

      • It means God the Father exalted Jesus, who is God the eternal Son, the eternal Word, کلمه الله

        Like

  16. @ Ken

    Also, your attempt to turn the question doesn’t work. Yes, Jesus(as) is a great prophet but he is still a man at the end of the day and he will still have to stand in line and be judged by his Lord and Creator.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. So, in Psalm 51:7, where David says, “cleanse me with hyssop” – David is saying “cleanse me with the blood on the brush that is dipped in the blood of the passover lamb (see Exodus 12:22, read the whole chapter), which atones for, cleanses, and forgives. Forgiveness is only through both blood sacrifice and at the same time, a repentant heart.

    Like

    • Ken says “Forgiveness is only through both blood sacrifice”. This a lie that Christians always try to con others into believing.

      Most sins had no blood sacrifice to atone for. Only repentance sufficed. And even for those sins that usually require blood, provision is made for a non-blood sacrifice if an Israelite was poor:

      “‘If, however, they cannot afford two doves or two young pigeons, they are to bring as an offering for their sin a tenth of an ephah[b] of the finest flour for a sin offering. They must not put olive oil or incense on it, because it is a sin offering. 12 They are to bring it to the priest, who shall take a handful of it as a memorial[c] portion and burn it on the altar on top of the food offerings presented to the Lord. It is a sin offering. 13 In this way the priest will make atonement for them for any of these sins they have committed, and they will be forgiven. The rest of the offering will belong to the priest, as in the case of the grain offering.’”

      Lev 5

      Liked by 2 people

      • that was an exception for the poor:
        “if however, they cannot afford two doves or pigeons. . . ” You ignore all the other blood sacrifices in Lev. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and the day of atonement in Lev. 16-17 – the blood that makes atonement.

        So, I am not lying.

        Like

      • Yes, you are lying. Paul’s point is that your god clearly can make an exception. Ergo, the shedding of blood is not an absolute requirement for atonement. So you are refuted. This must be getting frustrating for you!

        Liked by 1 person

  18. But then once a year, the day of atonement, in Leviticus 16-17 – there was the blood atonement for all the sins of Israel, for the sins of the people (Lev. 16:15-16, 20-22 – along with the scapegoat – “carrying away”/ “bearing the sins” aspect which both are described in Isaiah 53 – the Suffering Servant fulfilled both the slaughter / blood sacrifice aspect and the “bearing” / “carrying away” aspect.

    16:34 – “for ALL their sins, to make atonement for the people of Israel”

    The blood sacrifice of Lev. 16-17 once a year incorporated all the other ones that were by flour/ grain and covered them all.

    Lev. 17:11 — “It is by the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement”

    And you did not deal with hyssop – the brush that applied the blood at the Passover (Exodus 12) and the ashes of the slaughtered Red Heifer.

    So you are refuted again.

    Like

    • Kenny refutes Christianity YET AGAIN!

      Leviticus 16 states at the end:

      “This is to be a lasting ordinance for you: Atonement is to be made once a year for all the sins of the Israelites.”

      It is a “lasting ordinance”. In other words, no need for a mangod to die a humiliating death. Christianity is refuted for like the fifth time, and just on this thread! WOW!!

      Of course, this is only for the Israelites, not for the whole world. The Israelites had to atone this way as a nation, but individuals could atone in different ways. Ergo, blood was not an absolute necessity for atonement. Kenny is refuted again.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Except the prophets, like Isaiah 53, show that a future suffering servant, the Messiah, would come and fulfill both aspects of the 2 goats of the day of atonement – 1. the blood atonement slaughter aspect and 2. the carrying / bearing the sin away aspect.

        “. . . The Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall upon Him” Isaiah 53:6

        The Son of Man came to serve and to give His life a ransom for many. Mark 10:45

        Even the Qur’an affirms the ransom فدا، فدیه and blood sacrifice / slaughter ذبح aspect.

        وَ فَدَيْنَاهُ بِذِبْحٍ عَظِيمٍ – Surah 37:107

        “and we have ransomed him with a mighty sacrifice/slaughter.”

        Like

      • “Except the prophets, like Isaiah 53, show that a future suffering servant, the Messiah, would come and fulfill both aspects of the 2 goats of the day of atonement – 1. the blood atonement slaughter aspect and 2. the carrying / bearing the sin away aspect.

        “. . . The Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall upon Him” Isaiah 53:6

        The Son of Man came to serve and to give His life a ransom for many. Mark 10:45

        Even the Qur’an affirms the ransom فدا، فدیه and blood sacrifice / slaughter ذبح aspect.

        وَ فَدَيْنَاهُ بِذِبْحٍ عَظِيمٍ – Surah 37:107

        “and we have ransomed him with a mighty sacrifice/slaughter.””

        Except that none of the prophets show a future suffering servant. We have all heard your BS before. Saying it over and over again will not make it any truer. It will only further expose your Christianity-infected mind.

        Like

  19. None of you can refute that in context, Psalm 51:17-19 teaches both heart repentance (v. 17) and blood sacrifice (v. 19).

    Psalm 51:19

    19 Then You will delight in righteous sacrifices,
    In burnt offering and whole burnt offering;
    Then young bulls will be offered on Your altar.

    No one has refuted that at all.

    And Isaiah 53 speaks of the future Suffering Servant / Messiah, who will be the human who will fulfill all the temple / tabernacle sacrifices in His person.

    Jesus said He is that suffering servant.

    Mark 10:45
    the Son of Man came to serve and to give His life a ransom for many.

    and the Qur’an even affirmed unknowingly the substitution ransom sacrifice aspect of the prophetic word of Genesis 22 in Surah 37:107

    “we have ransomed him with a mighty sacrifice”

    Like

    • Lol! You know full well it doesn’t say anything about atonement FOR SIN in that ayat. Keep your pagan garbage out of our faith.

      Liked by 1 person

      • The author of the Qur’an could not help but unknowingly / ignorantly affirm substitutionary atonement for sin by blood sacrifice, because he refers to the story of Abraham and the offering of his son (from previous Scripture in Genesis 22, although the Arabs and Muhammad just heard about it, since they could not read Hebrew, and the Bible had not been translated into Arabic yet.) The whole OT is all about blood sacrifice – Genesis 22, Exodus 12 (The Passover), Job offered sacrifices for forgiveness of sins in Job chapter 1; Noah, Abraham, Leviticus, Numbers, the temple ( 1 Kings), etc. the prophets – Isaiah 53, Zechariah, etc.

        By affirming the previous Scriptures, the author or compilers of the Qur’an could not help but affirm the atonement by blood sacrifice – the words “ransom” فدا ، فدیه and “sacrifice” / “slaughter” ذبح makes this clear.

        Also the context of the Genesis 22 historical narrative.

        “Where is the lamb for the burnt offering? (see Genesis 22:7-8)

        “God will provide the lamb for the burnt offering my son . . . ” (verse 8)

        Jesus Al Masih is the ultimate lamb of God – fulfillment of all the OT sacrifices and Isaiah 53.

        John the Baptizer spoke truth:
        “Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” John 1:29

        The Qur’an could not help but affirm all of these things, by affirming the Genesis story of Abraham and the sacrifice, the prophethood of John the Baptist یحیی Yahya, and Jesus as the Messiah. عیسی المسیح also Jesus as the Word of God کلمه الله and the one who taught the gospel انجیل and had disciples حواریون and founded the people of the gospel / the people of the book. اهل کتاب و اهل انجیل

        Like

      • O God when will you ever grow a brain and stop repeating your usual trash. NOWHERE does it say anything about atonement for sin. You know that and now you play the game that all xtians play when they are beaten: you run to your idiotic “Qur’an affirms bible” claim. It doesn’t, get over it. You have been HUMILIATED on this subject over and over again and u just can’t seem to get enough of it. Prove from the Qur’an that what you say is true instead of using your comicbook which the prophet said was corrupted:

        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.)

        Also:
        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.)

        RIP.

        Liked by 1 person

      • ransom فدا و فدیه and slaughter ذبح indicate the blood atonement background from the previous Scriptures.

        Why don’t you grow a brain and do more research on the actual original context and background of the whole OT with the teachings all through on atonement by blood sacrifice, and how Isaiah 53 is a prophesy of Jesus the Messiah and how the NT (the true Injeel, انجیل ) shows He is the fulfillment of it?

        Like

      • I wasn’t talking about the OT. You are.
        I am pointing out the simple fact that you are mixing your bible rituals into the Qur’an. The Qur’an does NOT say ransom for sin. What a potato!

        Liked by 1 person

      • Kenny the broken record…on with the stupidity!

        Isaiah 53 is not about the Messiah. So you are refuted again. I don’t think you have room for a brain while your head is so far up your rear end. I guess that explains your woeful stupidity. 😉

        Like

  20. Faizy wrote:

    You also ignored the fact that elsewhere, David described himself as being “blameless”:

    “I have been blameless before him and have kept myself from sin. The Lord has rewarded me according to my righteousness, according to my cleanness in his sight.”

    You really skewered yourself here – this is from the end of the book 2 Samuel, where David looks back over his whole life ( and Psalm 18.)

    You quoted 2 Samuel 22:24-25, but you failed to note verse 23 – the laws and statutes and ordinances of the law include the laws in the Torah about how to find forgiveness and cleansing and restoration – through repentance and blood sacrifices in the temple.

    Also, 2 Samuel 11-12 to the end of the book, (in the same book you claim he is claiming sinlessness and purity) is all about David’s sin with Bathsheba and the consequences, so David is looking back at the forgiveness and cleansing that God gave him for he followed the laws, ordinances, statutes of the Levitical and sacrifices laws of blood atonement for forgiveness.

    “cleanse me with Hyssop” Psalm 51:7 = apply the blood of the Passover lamb with the hyssop branch as a brush that smears the blood atonement on me, etc.

    “The law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul . . .” Psalm 19:7 (including the blood atonement laws that guide and instruct on how to find forgiveness after one sins.)

    Thanks for proving the OT and NT are true!

    You are refuted again.

    Like

    • Kenny refutes Christianity YET AGAIN!

      “You quoted 2 Samuel 22:24-25, but you failed to note verse 23 – the laws and statutes and ordinances of the law include the laws in the Torah about how to find forgiveness and cleansing and restoration – through repentance and blood sacrifices in the temple.”

      LOL!! So the laws and statutes are what are needed for salvation, NOT blood atonement! David was righteous because he followed God’s laws. This refutes original sin and the nonsense of blood atonement. Kendra is refuted again.

      “Also, 2 Samuel 11-12 to the end of the book, (in the same book you claim he is claiming sinlessness and purity) is all about David’s sin with Bathsheba and the consequences, so David is looking back at the forgiveness and cleansing that God gave him for he followed the laws, ordinances, statutes of the Levitical and sacrifices laws of blood atonement for forgiveness.”

      Kendra skewered herself! What did God say about David, according to the book of Acts?

      “God testified concerning him: ‘I have found David son of Jesse, a man after my own heart; he will do everything I want him to do.’”

      So despite the adultery (which of course is a made-up story), God still considered David a righteous man! So Kendra is refuted again.

      So, to summarize…Kendra has refuted Christianity all by herself multiple times. Thanks Kendra! 🙂

      Like

      • Sorry, but you are wrong – many of the laws of the Torah are about the blood sacrifices for atonement of sins.

        You cannot escape that truth and reality.

        You are refuted.

        Well, the definition of “a man after God’s own heart” as David was, was a man who has humility and confesses and repents when he sins, and follows God’s laws on how to obtain forgiveness and cleansing through the OT sacrifices.

        the adultery was not a made up story, (God’s record of man’s sins; God exposes sin to the world and history, unlike Islam which tries to hide sin and is hypocritical and has a shame based culture) and you are using parts of 2 Samuel and Psalm 51:17 and Acts 13 that prove your inconsistent and disingenuous methods of picking and choosing, right from the same author and books.

        So, you are refuted again.

        Like

      • Kenny refutes Christianity YET AGAIN!

        “Sorry, but you are wrong – many of the laws of the Torah are about the blood sacrifices for atonement of sins.”

        So, not ALL laws are about blood sacrifices, which proves again that your obsession with it is not supported by your own Bible. Ergo, Christianity is false.

        You cannot escape that truth and reality.

        You are refuted.

        You are a broken record.

        No one takes you seriously.

        “Well, the definition of “a man after God’s own heart” as David was, was a man who has humility and confesses and repents when he sins, and follows God’s laws on how to obtain forgiveness and cleansing through the OT sacrifices.”

        Well, whatever the definition was, the point is that David was considered righteous in God’s eyes. This disproves your idiotic claims.

        Also, there was supposed to be no forgiveness for adultery. The punishment was death, not a sacrifice. Your god violated his own law by killing David’s son.

        “the adultery was not a made up story, (God’s record of man’s sins; God exposes sin to the world and history, unlike Islam which tries to hide sin and is hypocritical and has a shame based culture) and you are using parts of 2 Samuel and Psalm 51:17 and Acts 13 that prove your inconsistent and disingenuous methods of picking and choosing, right from the same author and books.”

        Tell that to the author of Chronicles. He skipped the whole story.

        Your false god is a hypocrite himself. He can’t even follow his own laws. This further exposes your satanic religion.

        So you are refuted again. 😉

        Like

  21. Ken is correct. Hyssop was used for applying the blood. This is clearly seen in Exodus 12. I would however like to see verses from those who disagree that explain differently how the hyssop was to be used in the context of cleansing one of their sins.

    Likewise, the flour offered on the altar obviously would have absorbed blood that was already on the altar. This is a picture coveying how we could not pay for our sins, yet one paid the price for us so that we could be redeemed.

    As for David being blameless, as Ken correctly pointed out, this followed his sins of adultery and murder. To say that David was blameless in this verse because he followed the law ignores the fact that he committed these sins. Yes David repented. But does Islam teach that an adulterer and murderer’s life can be spared if they repent? I believe sharia law demands they be put to death, no?

    I would like to know from the muslim contributors here, is it your position that blood atonement for sin is a) one of the means prescribed by God to bring about forgiveness or b) that is a corruption inserted into the Old Testament scriptures?

    If one would appeal to mentions of flour and hyssop for cleansing, asserting that these verses show non-blood atonement for sin, then it would seem only reasonable to me that even though i disagree with that assertion, at least to be consistent to then acknowledge then prescription for blood sacrifices in other verses, e.g. those who could afford a bull or pigeon, etc.

    Liked by 1 person

    • The law did not allow an adulterer to simply “repent”. Can you show me where that is stated? The punishment was supposed to be death, and yet David was spared, and instead God killed his son. How is that justice?

      But despite being an adulterer…and a mass murderer, David is still praised by God. He is called “righteous”. This clearly refutes the doctrine of original sin.

      I referred to the hyssop ritual specifically to refute original sin. The topic was not blood atonement in that context. But as far as blood atonement is concerned, it has been shown that it was not an ABSOLUTE requirement for repentance and salvation. This refutes Christianity, which emphasizes blood atonement as the only way to achieve salvation. The Tanakh clearly disagrees.

      Like

    • @ Royal Son

      It’s kinda difficult to ascertain. if I had to personally guess it was probably prescribed and Christians “ran with the concept” which we know they did in certain cases (for example the “Passover lamb” concept despite the text clearly stating the lamb had to be a female and on an altar). According to the Jews for accidental sins, you didn’t just repent you also do an action. In this case a sacrifice. The means of sacrificing is not the ONLY way God forgives it was simply a penalty God enacted so that you remember not to do it again.

      I’ll give an example from Islam of us having similar laws:

      “God will not hold you responsible for whatever casual pointless talk you make. But He will hold you responsible for whatever you promise and pledge to commit to. The penalty for breaking your vows, consists of either feeding ten poor people with the food you would give your own family on an average day, providing them with clothing or freeing a slave. Those who cannot afford any of this, are too fast for three days. That is the atonement for breaking your vows. So follow through with your promises and take them seriously. God makes His lessons and revelations clear to you in this way so that you can be thankful.” (5:89)

      In this verse, if you break a certain vow you give to God (for example “I swear to God if I make it through this I will give a million dollars away in charity!”) and then break it. You have to either:

      1. Feed 10 poor people
      2. If you can’t do that, provide clothes for 10 poor people
      3. If you can’t do that, free a slave
      4. If you can’t do that fast for 3 days.

      Pretty simple right? Now imagine there was a group of people using this verse and saying: “God only accepts charity and fasting as the means of forgiveness!!!” That would sound off I’m sure to you I’m sure. This from my studies is what Christians did in regard to sacrifices. The blood doesn’t matter its the intent of piety that does. If you take what I said into account you’ll see that all the different Biblical verses reconcile.

      Liked by 1 person

      • The Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16-17 was designed to cover all the sins of Israel, that had not been atoned for by blood and all sins.

        The prophesy in Isaiah 53 combines both the blood sacrifice substitutionary aspect and the carrying away / bearing aspect.

        Then Jesus fulfilled that prophesy. Mark 10:45; 1 Peter 2:24

        Not only does a Jewish Rabbi admit that the day of atonement is parallel to Jesus’ atonement on the cross; but I also go through meticulously and show how Leviticus 16-17 and Isaiah 53 fit together and how the NT demonstrates Jesus is the fulfillment of all the OT sacrificial laws.

        https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2013/07/07/rabbi-admits-that-the-day-of-atonement-is-parallel-to-jesus-christ/

        Like

      • Kendra, you have been humiliated on this matter over and over again. It doesn’t matter what significance the day of atonement has. The fact remains that Leviticus 5 clearly shows that blood atonement was not ALWAYS required. So your obsession with it is moot.

        Also, Isaiah 53 says nothing about the messiah. This is a Christian invention, which only brainwashed Christians will accept. Reasonable people don’t see anything in there about a suffering messiah. The messiah was not supposed to suffer. He was supposed to be a triumphant king. And no, there is nothing in the Bible about a “second coming” either. This is a problem for Christians, not for Jews or Muslims. Of course, it will become a problem for Jews eventually when they realize that their book is not God’s word, and hence whatever it says about the messiah need not necessarily be true. The messiah will return, inshaAllah, and he will lead the believers and crush all religions, including your heathen religion.

        Like

  22. Another argument that the Rabbi makes is about Isaiah 53:10 – that phrase, “He would render Himself as a guilt offering . . . ” is harkening back to Leviticus 5:15-19 and the guilt offering there, but it states that it is only for unintentional sins, not intentional ones. But if one keeps reading into Leviticus chapter 6:1-7, one can see that the “guilt offering” [ אשם ] also includes intentional sins. (Thanks to Michael Brown for that insight! Answers to Jewish Objections to Jesus. 5 Volumes. In volume 2, “Theological Objections, on page 128 and following. ) Furthermore, the day of atonement emphasizes several times “for all the iniquities of the sons of Israel”. (see Leviticus 16:20-22 and verse 34) All would include both intentional and unintentional sins.

    But the Lord was pleased
    To crush Him, putting Him to grief;
    If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, [ אשם ]
    He will see His offspring,
    He will prolong His days,
    And the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand. (Isaiah 53:10)

    Allusions or quotes in the NT:

    Isaiah 52:13 – “My Servant” – Mark 10:45; Matthew 20:28. Matthew 12:1-4 also about “My servant” which is a quote from Isaiah 42:1-4. Jesus, as the servant who serves and “give His life a ransom for man” alludes to all of Isaiah 53, and He was clearly claiming to be the servant of Isaiah 42 and 53.

    “He will act wisely or prudently” = the Hebrew word here is a deep word, meaning, “He will act wisely so as to succeed or prosper”, in carrying out the will of God. This word is also used in Joshua 1:8.

    “He will be high, and lifted up, and great exalted.” This points to the numerous concepts of Jesus’ glorification and victory over sin in His resurrection, and ascension to heaven, and His taking His seat of authority at the right hand of the Father.

    Isaiah 52:14 – “His appearance was marred more than any man” – refers to the beatings and sufferings of the brutal crucifixion. He was so disfigured that the disciples did not recognize Him when He rose from the dead, because the last memories of His dis-figurement was so seared into their brains.

    Isaiah 52:15 – “what had not been told them, they will see, and what they had not heard, they will understand” – this is quoted by the apostle Paul in Romans 15:20-21, that when the gospel goes to new areas and new people groups, the mission of the suffering servant is being fulfilled and accomplished. The mission of the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 52-53 is not complete until all the unreached people groups have heard, and some of them come to know the true God, the fulfillment when some from all the nations will be redeemed by the blood of the lamb. (see Revelation 5:9)

    Isaiah 53:1 – quoted in John 12:38 and Romans 10:16

    Isaiah 53:2- 3 – alluded to back in Isaiah 11:1 and as the “Netzer” [ נצר ] and the branch and tender shoot, (with Jeremiah 23:5; 33:15; and Zechariah 3:8 and 6:12) – as the “Netzer” – he was despised and rejected and this is what Matthew 2:23 is talking about when it says, “this was to fulfill the word of the prophets, He will be called a Nazarene.” (“Netzer” or “Nazer” is the root of “Nazarene”) The Jews of the south around Jerusalem were disgusted with the area of Galilee, “Galilee of the Gentiles”, and the Samaritans, because they were half Jews, mixed with the Assyrians and others peoples (see 2 Kings 17); and so many Greeks and Romans and other foreigners were up there in around Galilee. “can anything good come out of Galilee?” was a common saying.

    Isaiah 53:4 – quoted in Matthew 8:17;

    the “bearing of sin” is alluded to in 1 Peter 2:24 and other places. The word for “pain”/”sickness” is used in Isaiah 1:3-9 about the sins of the people. Also, Jeremiah 17:9 speaks of the heart being sick and deceitful, and although a different word for “sick”, the concept points to spiritual sickness in sin.

    Isaiah 53:5 – the last phrase is quoted in 1 Peter 2:24

    Isaiah 53:6 – alluded to in 1 Peter 2:25

    Isaiah 53:7 – 8

    He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
    Yet He did not open His mouth;
    Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, (see John 1:29)
    And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers,
    So He did not open His mouth.

    By oppression and judgment He was taken away,

    And as for His generation, who considered that He was cut off out of the land of the living,

    For the transgression of My people, to whom the stoke was due?

    Isaiah 53:7-8 is quoted in Acts 8:30-35

    30 Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?” 31 And he said, “Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. 32 Now the passage of Scripture which he was reading was this:

    “He was led as a sheep to slaughter;
    And as a lamb before its shearer is silent,
    So He does not open His mouth.
    33 “In humiliation His judgment was taken away;
    Who will relate His generation?
    For His life is removed from the earth.”

    34 The eunuch answered Philip and said, “Please tell me, of whom does the prophet say this? Of himself or of someone else?” 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him.

    Another interesting note is the phrase “cut off from the land of the living”. This concept of being “cut off” is similar to the passage about the Messiah in Daniel 9:26 – “Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.” Clearly this is about the death of the Messiah predicted by Daniel, and then after His death, the temple will be destroyed, in 70 AD, as Jesus predicted in Matthew 23:36-39 and 24:1-3 and 15.

    Isaiah 53:9 –

    His grave was assigned with wicked men,
    Yet He was with a rich man in His death, (allusion to Joseph of Arimathea’s grave in Matthew 27:57)
    Because He had done no violence,
    Nor was there any deceit in His mouth. (Quoted in 1 Peter 2:22)

    Isaiah 53:10 –

    But the Lord was pleased – (pointing to the wrath of God being satisfied by His atonement in willingly being a guilt offering- Leviticus chapter 5 and 6)

    To crush Him, putting Him to grief;
    If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, (Leviticus 5 and 6:1-7)
    He will see His offspring, (The Messiah’s “seed” is His spiritual sons and daughters by faith – also referred to later in the passage in Isaiah 54:1-4 and Galatians 3-4)
    He will prolong His days,
    And the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand.

    Isaiah 53:11-12

    As a result of the anguish of His soul,
    He will see it and be satisfied;
    By His knowledge the Righteous One,
    My Servant, will justify the many, (Jesus alludes to this in Mark 10:45; and Romans 5:11-21 speaks of the justification of many by the death of Christ)
    As He will bear their iniquities. (referred to at the beginning of the article)
    12 Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great,
    And He will divide the booty with the strong;
    Because He poured out Himself to death,
    And was numbered with the transgressors; (quoted in Luke 22:37; and also probably fulfilled by being crucified between 2 other criminals.)
    Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, (I Peter 2:24; Hebrews 7:27; 9:28)
    And interceded for the transgressors. (see Luke 23:34; Christ continues to intercede for us now – Romans 8:34, Hebrews 7:25)

    So, Isaiah 53 was a further development of the substitutionary sacrifice and the bearing of sins of the goats of the day of atonement in Leviticus 16, 17:11, (also in Leviticus 5-6) and a prediction of the Messiah to come, as almost every verse in Isaiah 52:13-53:12 is either directly quoted or alluded to in the NT.

    Like

  23. Nothing is “misapplied” in the NT, since it is inspired infallible revelation; it gives the true and intended sense of the original revelations in the OT.

    Like

  24. Ken, I’m not sure why you’re so afraid from the truth. The truth will free you. Don’t let your pride block you from seeing the obvious.
    So far, you have not dealt with the fact that the matter of blood had never been the priority for God in the Hebrew bible.
    (Psalm 51:17) “The sacrifice you desire is a broken spirit. You will not reject a broken and repentant heart, O God”
    (Proverbs 21:3) “The LORD is more pleased when we do what is right and just than when we offer him sacrifices”
    (Hosea 6:6) “For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.”
    Hence, we read about people who got forgiven without the blood. In fact, even in the christian bible we see this. This how God forgives sins.

    //None of you can refute that in context//
    I believe we did! Again the priority for God has never been about the blood! Even flour works in the Hebrew bible. Many people were labeled as righteous without the blood! In fact, this is true even in the christian bible as we see with John’s Baptism.

    Let me remind you
    “Then why do we find all this so emphasis on the blood matter which is a ritual thing in your religion to a level you have deformed the concept of what God is.
    If God doesn’t really put that emphasis on the blood as he said repeatedly, then who are you to do so?…

    On the other hand, you tell us that that there’s no salvation without the blood. In fact, some christians say once you accept that blood to be offered on behalf of you, you will not lose your salvation!
    How can that be different for what God had been complaining about jews!?
    Isn’t that ironic? While christians have a negative attitude towards religious ritual, they have built the whole of their religion on a corner stone called “sacrifice” with most vivd pagan image we could ever imagine!”

    As a result, the christianity’s teaching that God has to come out from a vagina to be crucified nakedly so that he can forgive us is more that absurd whether you call that “humbling” or not! You just create your own god as any pagan! Fear Allah عز وجل!

    Finally, all your desperate tries to distract us from the main point in the subject with your misrepresentation of Qur’an is not going to change the fact above, so please save your time.

    I invite you to Islam. Islam is the only truth through which you can find peace in your heart. Not to mention it’s the religion of Jesus himself.

    Liked by 2 people

  25. Yes you ignored Psalm 51:7 and 51:19 and the Day of Atonement once a year goes back and covers all the other examples of grain/flour sacrifices and unintentional sins – the Day of Atonement by blood sacrifice and “sending the sins away” / carrying away / bearing, included all the sins of Israel. “All” see last verse of Leviticus 16 and 17:11 – it is by the blood that makes atonement”, etc.

    You skipped over and ignored all that.

    Also, that Isaiah 53 fulfills all of that and that John the baptist and Jesus said He is the fulfillment of all the OT sacrifices.

    John 1:29

    Mark 10:45

    Like

    • And you ignored everything that contradicts this. Once again, if your god was as obsessed with blood atonement as you seem to be, then why does he emphasize faith and righteousness in many places instead of the sacrifices? And why does he makes exceptions in some cases of the sacrifices themselves, as in allowing even wheat to serve as a suitable replacement? Face it, Kendra. You are going up the creek without a paddle. Your heathen beliefs are contradicted by your Bible. As Abdullah said, the truth will free you. Time to wake up. Get your head out of your rear end and breathe fresh air. It’s for your own good. You don’t want to end up kicking yourself in the fire.

      Liked by 1 person

      • It is not an “obsession” – that is just your wording to try and avoid the law of God in the Torah and the prophets.

        Yes, there were some exceptions, for the poor, etc. – but the Day of Atonement in Lev. 16 and 17:11 was for “all the sins of Israel” and would incorporate everything.

        “there is no forgiveness / atonement without the shedding of blood” – Lev. 17:11; Hebrews 9:22

        God made the rules, not me.

        Christ the Messiah fulfilled them all.

        Even that Rabbi admitted Jesus atonement was parallel with the day of atonement.

        The Passover also . . . Isaiah 53 also.

        John 1:29
        Mark 10:45
        Isaiah 52:13-15 to 53:1-12

        1 Cor. 5:7

        Like

      • “It is not an “obsession” – that is just your wording to try and avoid the law of God in the Torah and the prophets.”

        Oh yeah, it’s an obsession. You need to admit you have a problem so that you can undergo treatment.

        Your god was inconsistent in applying his own laws. David committed adultery, yet Davis wasn’t stoned to death. Rather, God killed his son and then the two adulterers were allowed to get married and have another son!

        Your god also allowed exceptions for blood atonement. So he was not as obsessed with it as you are.

        “Yes, there were some exceptions, for the poor, etc. – but the Day of Atonement in Lev. 16 and 17:11 was for “all the sins of Israel” and would incorporate everything.

        “there is no forgiveness / atonement without the shedding of blood” – Lev. 17:11; Hebrews 9:22”

        Kenny’s deception knows no bounds.

        You quote Hebrews and then cross-reference that with Leviticus 17:11, but Leviticus does not say there is “no forgiveness without the shedding of blood”. In light of Leviticus 5, the statement in chapter 17 is general.

        “Christ the Messiah fulfilled them all.”

        No he didn’t.

        “Even that Rabbi admitted Jesus atonement was parallel with the day of atonement.”

        Good for him. There are others who disagree.

        Like

  26. @ Ken

    Now I don’t want to say you just fibbed by saying the verse didn’t say female goat so I won’t. Also you can’t use “two male goats” unless you want to say there were two Jesus(as) As for the rest:

    “In the Torah, blood sacrifices were not the only path to atonement; there were other ways to achieve forgiveness. For example, incense served to atone for the people in Numbers 16:46-47, and giving charity is described in Exodus 30:15-16 and Numbers 31:50 as `making atonement for your souls’ – the same expression as in Leviticus 17:11. In reality, blood sacrifices were the least effective of all the means of atonement mentioned in the Bible. One important limitation to the effectiveness of sacrifices is that they were only brought for unintentional sins (ie. someone didn’t know that kindling a fire was prohibited on the Sabbath, or they were aware of this, but thought it was Sunday when kindling the fire). Sacrifices did not help to atone for sins that were done intentionally (Leviticus 4, and Numbers 15:22-31).”

    https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/leviticus-1711/

    Like I said it’s the equivalent of someone saying in Islam God can’t forgive without fasting and feeding poor people. Give God some credit He knew we would all sin before He even created us, He couldn’t care less about blood because He owns all things.

    Also, NT authors misapplied verses all the time off the top of my head:

    1. Paul’s catenas
    2. Call my son out of Egypt
    3. He will be called a Nazarene
    4. The Donkey and the Colt
    5. Using the LXX version of the Hebrew Bible when other readings from the DSS, Samaritan and Masoretic versions are stronger.

    Like

  27. The quote for “Jews for Judaism” – of course they say that now, after the temple was destroyed in 70 AD, Rabbinic Judaism had to come up with an explanation as to why God allowed the temple to be destroyed and reasons to further reject Jesus as the final sacrifice.

    And, of course, you are all disingenuous to use them, since you accuse them of changing Scripture – saying 2 Samuel 11 – David’s adultery with Bathsheba is “just a made up story” – why would the Jewish people just make up a story like that?

    Noah’s drunkenness ? (Genesis 9)
    Abraham’s selfish lies ? (Genesis 12, 20)

    Moses’ murder (Exodus 2:11-14) and anger (Numbers 20:9-12; Deut. 32:51; Numbers 27:14-18 – so bad that God did not allow Moses (nor Aaron) to enter into the promised land.

    other sins of prophets ?

    Did the Jews just “make that up” ? Why would they make up stories that are embarressing about their sins?

    The Scriptures are more honest.

    God records man’s sins and exposes the sinfulness of all humans.

    I was not embarrassed about the female lamb in Leviticus 4 – there are lots of passages that say either male or female, or rams or bulls, etc.

    Many other passages speak of male lambs and male goats and male sheep and rams, etc. Bulls too.

    The Passover Lambs were to be male – Exodus 12

    It is obvious you don’t read the whole Torah – all of it – you just search Islamic and Jewish websites for picking out verses out of context that you can twist to make your point.

    God is the one who set up the sacrificial system. You have never read Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy all the way through.

    The exceptions of grain was for the poor, but the blood sacrifice in the day of atonement once a year would then cover “all the sins of Israel” – Leviticus 16 and 17:11

    so, you are refuted.

    Like

    • “And, of course, you are all disingenuous to use them, since you accuse them of changing Scripture – saying 2 Samuel 11 – David’s adultery with Bathsheba is “just a made up story” – why would the Jewish people just make up a story like that?”

      Again, the author of Chronicles skipped the story. Why? Answer the question, dummy.

      Why would they make up such a story? Oh I don’t know. Why would Hindus believe their blue god Krishna danced on a snake’s head? It’s myth-making. All it takes is one false story attributed to one person, and then it spreads from there. Give it several years, and it will become widely believed.

      “Did the Jews just “make that up” ? Why would they make up stories that are embarressing about their sins?”

      Again, it’s called myth-making stupid.

      Also, no one said that prophets could not make mistakes. But it is quite different to say that Moses (pbuh) killed a man in a momentary lapse of judgement than saying that he killed thousands of children, or that Lot (pbuh) got drunk and had sex with his daughters (conveniently right after witnessing the destruction of Sodom for another sexual sin).

      “The Scriptures are more honest.”

      If they were “honest”, they would be consistent. So while 2 Samuel accuses David of adultery, Chronicles skips the story entirely. Hmm, I wonder why?

      “I was not embarrassed about the female lamb in Leviticus 4 – there are lots of passages that say either male or female, or rams or bulls, etc.

      The Passover Lambs were to be male – Exodus 12”

      LOL, more inconsistency from Kenny’s so-called “scripture”! Was Jesus a sin offering or not? Was the sin offering supposed to be a female lamb or not? Why did your god keep changing his own rules?

      “It is obvious you don’t read the whole Torah – all of it – you just search Islamic and Jewish websites for picking out verses out of context that you can twist to make your point.”

      HAHAHAHA, that’s rich! Kenny accusing others of “twisting” and “picking verses out of context”!

      “God is the one who set up the sacrificial system. You have never read Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy all the way through.”

      Your god is inconsistent. Deal with it.

      “The exceptions of grain was for the poor, but the blood sacrifice in the day of atonement once a year would then cover “all the sins of Israel” – Leviticus 16 and 17:11”

      Yeah, I know that. You still can’t get it through your diseased mind that the fact that such exceptions were made shows that blood atonement was NOT an absolute requirement for forgiveness. Get that through your thick, trinitarian skull you heathen!

      Kenny and his religion are refuted again.

      Like

      • The book of Chronicles (originally one book, as was Samuel and Kings; later divided into 2 parts because of size) was written after the return from exile, and probably the last book of the Jewish TaNakh to be written. It is the last book in the Hebrew Bible.

        It goes back to Adam and is a summary of the positive events of the glories of the Davidic and Solomonic kingdoms and the southern Kingdom as focus on the temple, as encouragement for the new generation in the land. (rebuilding the temple – Ezra, rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem – Nehemiah, and the book of Malachi – all around 430 BC.

        Just because Chronicles does not mention the sin of adultery of David, does not mean it did not happen – after all, 2 Samuel is also part of the Hebrew canon. They did not “take it out” or “delete it” – you have to study and understand each book and the purpose of each book written.

        The Jews include 2 Samuel in their canon. They did not get rid of it. Deal with it.

        You cannot answer the inconsistencies that all Muslims have by trying to use Rabbinic Judaism (interpretations of the OT after the temple is destroyed in 70 AD); and yet also rejecting any passage in the OT that does not agree with Islam.

        You are like the liberal scholars who want to “have their cake and eat it too.” (that Paul Williams mentioned in a recent post.)

        So, you are refuted again.

        Like

      • “The book of Chronicles (originally one book, as was Samuel and Kings; later divided into 2 parts because of size) was written after the return from exile, and probably the last book of the Jewish TaNakh to be written. It is the last book in the Hebrew Bible.

        It goes back to Adam and is a summary of the positive events of the glories of the Davidic and Solomonic kingdoms and the southern Kingdom as focus on the temple, as encouragement for the new generation in the land. (rebuilding the temple – Ezra, rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem – Nehemiah, and the book of Malachi – all around 430 BC.”

        Yawwwwwn, all irrelevant. Poor Kenny…always trying so hard to impress people! LOL!!

        “Just because Chronicles does not mention the sin of adultery of David, does not mean it did not happen – after all, 2 Samuel is also part of the Hebrew canon. They did not “take it out” or “delete it” – you have to study and understand each book and the purpose of each book written.”

        LOL, of course they took it out! Your stupid assumptions carry no weight.

        The author of Chronicles deliberately decided to skip over the story, and we can see that by comparing 2 Samuel 20 with 1 Chronicles 20:

        The Chronicler repeated many of the stories found in 1 and 2 Samuel (some with contradictory information as we have seen), yet the story of David’s adultery is curiously absent. The author even began the story in the same way as the author of 2 Samuel, with the war against the Ammonites:

        2 Samuel 11:1 – In the spring, at the time when kings go off to war, David sent Joab out with the king’s men and the whole Israelite army. They destroyed the Ammonites and besieged Rabbah. But David remained in Jerusalem.

        1 Chronicles 20:1 – In the spring, at the time when kings go off to war, Joab led out the armed forces. He laid waste the land of the Ammonites and went to Rabbah and besieged it, but David remained in Jerusalem. Joab attacked Rabbah and left it in ruins.

        But while the account of the war in 2 Samuel 11 is interrupted by the Bathsheba affair and only completed at the end of 2 Samuel 12, the account in 1 Chronicles completely omits the story and instead only summarizes the war against the Ammonites.[64] Scholars have noted this discrepancy and suspect that it was deliberate. For example, Marc Zvi Brettler observes that the Chronicler omitted many of the more sordid and embarrassing parts of David’s story. He states:

        “Chronicles similarly omits the unflattering set of events that happened next in Samuel: the rape of David’s daughter Tamar by Amnon, her half-brother; the murder of Amnon by his half-brother Absalom; and the (largely successful) rebellion by Absalom, followed by his death. These events suggest a measure-for-measure punishment of David and his house. They reflect badly on David, so the Chronicler omitted them (perhaps with the hope that his book would displace Samuel as an authoritative version of history).”[65]

        Similarly, John C. Endres states:

        “The stories the Chronicler omitted include many incidents in which David’s loyalty and character seem compromised, where he appears weakened by sin that affects him and most of his household negatively. […] The Chronicler omits much of the negative portrayal of David (“whitewash”), perhaps to make him appear more religious and saintly.”[66]

        These seemingly deliberate omissions have led some scholars to believe that the story of the adulterous affair was inserted by a later redactor.[67]

        “The Jews include 2 Samuel in their canon. They did not get rid of it. Deal with it.”

        And 2 Samuel contradicts Chronicles. The Chronicler got rid of the story. Deal with it, dummy.

        “You cannot answer the inconsistencies that all Muslims have by trying to use Rabbinic Judaism (interpretations of the OT after the temple is destroyed in 70 AD); and yet also rejecting any passage in the OT that does not agree with Islam.”

        LOL, you have your head so far up your rear-end that you always convince yourself of your silly fantasies. You have been absolutely crushed in this debate!

        “You are like the liberal scholars who want to “have their cake and eat it too.” (that Paul Williams mentioned in a recent post.)”

        It’s actually your so-called “conservative” scholars. They know the truth but they still want to carry on the charade. Pathetic trinitarian heathens!

        So, you are refuted again. Poor Kendra…

        Like

  28. Matthew 2:23

    Matthew 2:23 was not part of the subject of the debate about Muhammad in the OT, but Zakir Hossein asked about it, because he seems to be saying that the NT authors tried to just go back and find things in the OT that may be used to show Jesus fulfilled them. He was trying to say that finding Muhammad in Song of Solomon, etc. was legitimate, for example because of the prophesy of Jesus as a Nazerene (Nazer) of similar sound to the Hebrew word for branch in Isaiah 11:1.

    Zakir Hossein asked about Matthew 2:23 and “where is it written in the prophets that Messiah would be called a Nazarene?”

    First, notice it says, “through the prophets” – plural. So he is speaking of a general concept that is in more than one prophet. “that what was spoken through the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene” (Matthew 2:23) “Nararene” – a Nazer – נצר – nzr – a rejected branch. Nazareth was a rejected city in the North, in “Galilee of the Gentiles”; it was rejected by the Jews in the south and around Jerusalem, since it was a Galilean town. (northern, Gentile, defiled by non-Jews). “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” (John 1:46; see also John 7:41 and 7:52)

    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)

    Isaiah 53:1-3 – concept of rejection, tender shoot, root out of dry ground

    Who has believed our message? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? 2 For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot, And like a root out of parched ground; He has no stately form or majesty That we should look upon Him, Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him. 3 He was despised and forsaken of men, A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; And like one from whom men hide their face He was despised, and we did not esteem Him. Isaiah 53:1-3

    There is another word for the Messiah as a “branch” צמח used often, combined with the concepts of shoot, root, sprout, and despised, shows that Matthew had many passages in mind when he wrote, “as it is spoken through the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene” – despised, rejected. Jeremiah 23:5 – Messiah will be a righteous branch. (צמח) Jeremiah 33:15 – a righteous branch (צמח )of David will spring forth Isaiah 4:2 – “branch of the Lord” (צמח) Zechariah 3:8 – “they are a symbol, for behold, I am going to bring in My servant the branch.” (צמח) Zechariah 6:12 – the one whose name is “Branch” (צמח) There are several words for “branch”(צמח is used more often) with root and shoot (Isaiah 53:1-3; 11:1) and “Nezer” (נצר) is not always used in every passage. But the concept of a branch, with the concepts of “shoot” and “root” and “rejected”; and the concept of being rejected combines all these passages as demonstrating what Matthew 2:23 was referring to.

    https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2015/03/09/debate-is-muhammad-prophesied-in-the-bible/

    Like

  29. he sin offering is to be male when offered for “a ruler” of the people (Leviticus 4:22-23) but a female when offered for “one of the common people” (Leviticus 4:27-28).

    22 “‘When a leader sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the commands of the Lord his God, when he realizes his guilt
    23 and the sin he has committed becomes known, he must bring as his offering a male goat without defect.
    24 He is to lay his hand on the goat’s head and slaughter it at the place where the burnt offering is slaughtered before the Lord. It is a sin offering.

    Perhaps the female goat for the common people is an emphasis that all humans are sinners, since we are all born of woman.

    See:
    Job 14:1
    15:14
    25:4
    Matthew 11:11

    It is a Jewish expression that puts all of us on the same level as sinners.

    But Jesus was also born of a woman, a virgin, but was sinless.

    The combination of all the sacrifices demonstrates Jesus fulfilled them all – Genesis 22, the Passover (Exodus 12), the Levitical sacrifices, the day of atonement (Lev. 16-17) and the Isaiah 53 passage.

    Like

    • Ironic that you guys play games with the previous Scriptures and claim that this or that author “skipped” or “deleted” something (Paul Williams about Luke on Mark 10:45 and Matthew 20:28 and now Faizy on Chronciles and 2 Samuel 11-12, etc.)

      It is ironic because all of you Muslims skip over and neglect and delete the most important Scriptures of all -the New Testament, the true Injeel.

      انجیل حقیقی

      The Qur’an commands you to believe in it (although the author of the Qur’an was ignorant of its contents, he still affirmed it)

      Surah 5:47
      Surah 5:68
      Surah 10:94
      Surah 2:136
      Surah 29:46

      Sam Shamoun is right here:

      “Sura 7:156-157:
      “And I will write down (my mercy) for those who are righteous and give alms and who believe in our signs; who follow the apostle, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in the Torah and the Gospel THAT IS WITH THEM.

      Remark: This verse states that there is a prophecy of Muhammad to be found in the Gospel [singular] available during that time. This destroys the Muslim contention that the Quran mentions the Gospel given to Jesus, not the gospels written about him, since the only Gospel in usage at the time of Muhammad were the same four-fold Gospel accounts contained within our modern-day New Testaments.)”

      Even though the author of the Qur’an was wrong about a prophesy about Muhammad in the Bible, the author of the Qur’an was affirming the Scriptures AT THAT TIME. Muhammad wanted the previous Scriptures to affirm him, but oops, nothing is there about Muhammad at all. zero, zilch, nada, sepher. صفر

      the Qur’an’s mistakes prove it is not from God and not inspired and not revelation.

      Like

    • “he sin offering is to be male when offered for “a ruler” of the people (Leviticus 4:22-23) but a female when offered for “one of the common people” (Leviticus 4:27-28).”

      Kenny caught lying again! For the “ruler”, the sin offering is a male GOAT, not a male LAMB! I asked you this same question on the old BT: was Jesus also a GOAT? Your NT refers to him as a “lamb” in some places but never as a “goat”.

      But if some brought a lamb as the sin offering, it HAD to be a FEMALE.

      Kenny gets in trouble, and then tries to lie his way through, and then for added measure, tries to change the subject to what the Quran says. You Christians are pathetic! LOL!!

      Like

  30. Another excellent point from one of Shamoun’s articles:

    Finally, by the start of the second century the term “Gospel” was used by the early church to refer to the fourfold Gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Noted scholar, F. F. Bruce explains:

    “At a very early date it appears that the four Gospels were united in one collection. They must have been brought together very soon after the writing of the Gospel according to John. This fourfold collection was known originally as `The Gospel’ singular, not `The Gospels’ in the plural; there was only one Gospel, narrated in four records, distinguished as `according to Matthew’, `according to Mark’, and so on. About A.D. 115 Ignatius, bishop, of Antioch, refers to `The Gospel’ as an authoritative writing, and as he knew more than one of the four `Gospels’ it may well be that by `The Gospel’ sans phrase he means the fourfold collection which went by that name.” (Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? [Intervarsity Press; Downers Grove Il., rpt. 1992], p. 23)

    Like

    • But the early church fathers all recognised that they were 4 seperate books. And the Quran refers to just 1 revelation given to Jesus. No one ever claimed that the 4 gospels (or ‘gospel’) existed in the lifetime of Jesus. They were all written years later.

      Liked by 1 person

  31. @ Ken

    “Did the Jews just “make that up”?”
    Yes.

    “why would the Jewish people just make up a story like that?”
    Because they’re disbelievers who have no respect for God, the Prophets or Scripture. They killed them and oppressed them so could care less about slandering them. It’s usually done to establish an innovation, because they didn’t want to follow something, not verify where a lie came from or to slander a personality not liked. Case in point them calling Mary a hoe who slept with a Roman soldier (i.e a foreign occupier). But why would they make that up Ken?.

    “It is obvious you don’t read the whole Torah – all of it”
    Don’t remember claiming so. At the moment of this post, I have read from Genesis to to second Chronicles. With random interspersed chapters like Isaiah, Daniel etc. From the NT I’ve read Mark, Matt Luke and John. I also never read any chapter without both Jewish and Christians commentaries from reputable scholars or I would have already finished the Bible. So I can definitely say I have read more than the average Christian or Jew. Hate to tell ya but generally Jews make better arguments than Christians. The only reason I believe Jesus(as) was even a prophet was because of the Qur’an defending him.

    Next I do not try to have my cake and eat it too. As QB said I think its a bunch of laughable mythology from both sides that I have no obligation to believe in. The only thing Muslims attempt to due is show both sides what were original revelations. Please see the chart I created here for details (about midway down) alos my article answers the rest of your point including the verse you quoted without understanding:
    https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2019/02/24/corruption-of-the-scriptures-part-i-does-islam-confirm-the-bible-as-a-scripture-from-god/

    Now I’ll refute the “sacrificial system” mythology Christians have made up using simple logic like I did when I was an agnostic ready? According to Christianity, God originally had a sacrificial system because He has some sort of insatiable bloodlust (kinda like the virgin in the volcano) and Jesus(as) is the only sacrifice that could finally satisfy it. Cool. Let’s run with this. So before Jesus(as) they used the sacrifice system to forgive sins. What happened to people in other nations in Europe, Africa or the Americas who never heard about any of this nor never had a sacrificial system in place? Did they all go to Hell for something they were never warned about? Just need a simple yes or no answer, please.

    Liked by 1 person

    • “Just need a simple yes or no answer, please.”

      You rarely get those from xtians.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Acts 17:30

      30 Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent,

      31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”

      Romans 3:21-26

      21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,
      22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;
      23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
      24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;
      25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His justice, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;
      26 for the demonstration, I say, of His justice at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

      Like

      • @ Ken

        1. What is Paul’s or the writer of Acts evidence for that statement? None of these men are receiving revelation from God so how do they know? On what grounds do they have to say who God will forgive?

        2. So did God need to do sacrifices or not? Either:
        A. God has the forbearance and mercy to forgive sins previously thus refuting the need of the “sacrifice system”
        B. These people are forgiven for no reason and thus justice is not established because they “died in sin” and God arbitrarily overturned their sins despite not being able to stand in its presence according to Christianity. Why can’t everyone get that then and what is the point of Jesus(as)? Also refutes the “sacrifice system”
        C. You are saying then all pagans are forgiven because this was during the times of ignorance and they get to be in heaven right alongside the believers. Making one’s faith meaningless. Remember mankind has existed drastically longer than Jesus’s(as) coming. Thus what one believes is arbitrary.

        @ Everyone else
        If anyone else has anything else to add with this theological conundrum please do so.

        Liked by 1 person

      • “30 Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent,”

        Kenny refutes Christianity again! So Kenny’s god was able to “overlook” sinners for thousands of years huh? So it wasn’t that important for people to be saved through “blood atonement”. God was able to just forgive them! Hallelujah!

        Like

      • Dang stew, you just ruthlessly destroyed Christianity in one short, succinct post!

        Like

      • //25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His justice, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;//

        BTW, this’s just one of Paul’s lie to complete his new theory of justice.
        We always ask christians, why had God threatened and punished jews repeatedly if the law cannot be kept & applied in the first place, and human beings are under the wrath of God once they born? This contradicts the justice and the mercy of God.
        It seems Paul was aware of this huge defect in his theory about Justice, so he just decided to give a big a lie for Romans. Allah knows best of what that guy was thinking!
        This matter is linked with point #10 in the article which by the way Ken has not dealt with any of its points.

        Liked by 1 person

  32. Steven Anderson says, and I’m paraphrasing”
    “you don’t have to repent from your sins for your salvation because this has to do with the salvation through works”

    Other Christians say “you are not gonna lose your salvation whatever you do once you accept Jesus as a sacrifice on your behalf”

    What a mess!

    How could that be different from what God had been complaining about jews?
    (Psalm 51:17) “The sacrifice you desire is a broken spirit. You will not reject a broken and repentant heart, O God”
    (Proverbs 21:3) “The LORD is more pleased when we do what is right and just than when we offer him sacrifices”
    (Hosea 6:6) “For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.”

    Like

  33. If God wants to provide atonement Himself by becoming flesh (John 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8), who are you, O Muslim to question that?

    “He is not questioned about what He does, but they will be questioned.” Surah Anbiyah (The Prophets) 21:23

    If Jesus wants to voluntarily become the atonement, (John 10:18; Mark 10:45), who are you O Muslim, to question that?

    If God wants to preserve His justice and holiness by providing the ransom Himself, who are you, O Muslim human to question that ?

    If God wants to fullfill the OT sacrificial system by becoming the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29; Revelation 5:9 – some from every nation are redeemed), who are you, O Muslim, O human, to question that?

    https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2013/09/25/response-to-shabir-ally-and-paul-bilal-williams-on-the-incarnation-and-atonement/

    Like

    • Who are we to question it?
      We are believers who reflect. We believe in justice and not that someone innocent pays for our crimes. If something goes against that then we will question it and eventually reject it. We believe in a reality where the laws of logic aren’t broken. God being God and man is a logical self contradiction. Saying someone is finite and infinite, ignorant and All-Knowing, weak and All-Powerful are logical contradictions. You can save us your verbal gymnasitics with your “nature” nonsense since that doesn’t make the self contradictions magically go away.

      We are Muslims. We submit to our Lord. And our Lord isn’t a false deity with a suicide mission to unjustly make wicked people go to heaven just because they believe He payed for our crimes naked on a piece of wood.

      Liked by 2 people

      • You are unbelievers. You cannot reach the one true God apart from Christ as Savior, Lord, God in the flesh, eternal Word, eternal Son.

        It is foolishness and illogical because you are dead in your sins and blind.

        John 8:43-47
        43 Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word.
        . . .
        47 He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.”

        Like

      • why did God wait for 99% of human history to pass by before revealing his plan of salvation? Not very just..

        Liked by 2 people

      • 600 years too late; false revelation; false religion.

        You cannot know the true God except through Jesus Christ as Savior, Lord, God in the flesh, eternal Word, eternal Son.

        John 3:18

        Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

        John 14:6 – “no one can come to the Father except by Me.”

        Acts 4:12 – “there is no other name under heaven by which we must be saved, other than the name of Jesus Christ.”

        Like

      • You denigrate God’s justice, since you think God can just wink at sin without His justice being poured out.

        Christ took the justice on the cross.

        2 Cor. 5:21

        Galatians 3:10-13

        Like

      • God is merciful. He is not compelled to punish. Go read the gospels.

        Liked by 1 person

      • As usual just verbal diarrhia from Kenny.

        God doesn’t just “wink” at sin. Your repentance is what makes God FORGIVE your sins. The fact that you talk about justice and paying for someone else’s crimes in one sentence is mind boggeling.
        That’s not justice nor is it any form of forgiveness. It’s a SHIFT of sin. Call it what it is.

        Liked by 3 people

      • “why did God wait for 99% of human history to pass by before revealing his plan of salvation? Not very just.. ”

        Notice how Kenny didn’t answer the question. He knows he’s in trouble and that his religion is being exposed with every idiotic comment he makes!

        Kenny has shown that his god cannot seem to make up his mind. For thousands of years, he allowed “overlooked” people’s sinfulness, only to reveal his “grand plan” 2,000 years ago. Hmmm, Kenny complains about Islam coming 600 years after, but his god came about 200,000 years too late! That’s how much of human history had passed by without the Christian god’s plan of “salvation”.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Your “god” is confused and hypocritical, so he cannot be the True God. That is why we question your concept of “God”. You insult God with your heathen theology.

      Liked by 2 people

  34. 1. Sure, death sucks, but why single out this one? Lots of people die. . . .

    The New Testament teaches that Jesus’ death was much deeper than just physical pain and suffering. He actually took on Himself the eternal judgment and wrath of God against sin. It was an eternal sacrifice.
    This is why Jesus cried out – “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” – He was suffering under the wrath of God, not just physical suffering. It was an expression of the intensity of the eternal weight of judgement He was under. But He did this voluntarily. (John 10:18)
    Read the whole chapter of Hebrews 9
    Hebrews 9:1-28
    and
    Hebrews 10:1-18
    and
    2 Corinthians 5:21
    and Galatians 3:10-13

    2. What about that whole hell thing? An eternity of torment for even a single person makes Jesus’s agony insignificant by comparison, and it counts for nothing when you consider the billions that are apparently going to hell.

    Because all sin is an affront to a holy, eternal God, an affront to His majesty and honor, which is an eternally worthy honor; therefore hell is forever.

    Islam also believes in hell for unbelievers, so it is dumb for Muslims to object to point # 2.

    3. Jesus didn’t even die. . . .

    That is a stupid statement since all through the New Testament, the true Injeel, it says “Jesus died”.

    Like

    • “The New Testament teaches that Jesus’ death was much deeper than just physical pain and suffering. He actually took on Himself the eternal judgment and wrath of God against sin. It was an eternal sacrifice.”

      What a load of rubbish! How exactly did he take “eternal judgement and wrath of God” upon himself? Is he going to burn in hell for eternity? How exactly was it an “eternal sacrifice”? Will Jesus be crucified over and over again? Man, I can’t stop laughing at Kenny’s stupidity! Do you even understand what you write?

      “This is why Jesus cried out – “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” – He was suffering under the wrath of God, not just physical suffering. It was an expression of the intensity of the eternal weight of judgement He was under. But He did this voluntarily.”

      But how was it “eternal” if it only lasted a few hours? Why is Christianity such a ridiculous mixture of contradictions in every aspect of its theology?

      “Because all sin is an affront to a holy, eternal God, an affront to His majesty and honor, which is an eternally worthy honor; therefore hell is forever.”

      So then your mangod should burn in hell for eternity, since he allegedly took the “judgement and wrath” on himself.

      “Islam also believes in hell for unbelievers, so it is dumb for Muslims to object to point # 2.”

      It’s not dumb, dummy. We are pointing out the contradictions in your religion. Your religion is like a movie with a bad script and plot holes.

      “That is a stupid statement since all through the New Testament, the true Injeel, it says “Jesus died”.”

      Yes, but the point he was making is that he also resurrected. Therefore, it was not a typical death. Now of course, being an atheist, he doesn’t believe in a resurrection after death, but it is a valid point that your mangod did not suffer death like all humans have and will suffer.

      Like

  35. 4. Taking on the sin vs. removal of sin aren’t symmetric. We didn’t do anything to get original sin. We just inherited it from Adam. So why do we have to do anything to get the redemption? If God demands a sacrifice, he got it. That’s enough. Why the requirement to believe to access the solution?

    Even Muslims believe in repentance and faith in order to become a believer who will go to heaven, so this question is strange that a Muslim sees validity in it.
    The way spiritual truth is applied to us as humans is that we are responsible to understand that we are sinners and repent and trust in Christ.

    That is just the way it is – according to the revelation of God’s word, the Scriptures. (OT and NT)

    5. The reason behind the sacrifice—mankind’s original sin—makes no sense. Why blame Adam for a moral lapse that he couldn’t even understand? Remember that he hadn’t yet eaten the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, so who could blame him when he made a moral mistake?
    And how can we inherit original sin from Adam? Why blame us for something we didn’t do? That’s not justice, and the Bible agrees:
    Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin (Deut. 24:16)

    Deut. 24:16 and passages in Ezekiel 18 are talking about specific sins – actions of sin and that the government or church cannot punish a child for what the parent did.

    Original sin is different.

    Original sin includes:
    1. Inherited corruption – we inherit the corruption (the selfishness, pride, lusts, wickedness) that causes us to sin later, when a young child.
    2. Original guilt – We are guilty in Adam, because we all came from Adam, and we do the same things (sins) –
    Hosea 6:7
    But like Adam they have transgressed the covenant . .

    6. Jesus made a sacrifice—big deal. 

    Same answer as # 1.
    For the eternal Son of God to enter into humanity was a big deal. That is why Muslims object to it, precisely because it is such a massive big deal. Both the incarnation and atonement are so big, eternal, that it blows our minds.

    Like

    • “Even Muslims believe in repentance and faith in order to become a believer who will go to heaven, so this question is strange that a Muslim sees validity in it.
      The way spiritual truth is applied to us as humans is that we are responsible to understand that we are sinners and repent and trust in Christ.”

      Um, Muslims believe that having faith in God is what saves. That is different from what Christianity requires. You think that salvation is achieved only by believing that God died for our sins. It wasn’t enough that he died. We have to acknowledge that in order to be saved. This of course creates the inevitable contradiction between Christians claiming that salvation is a “free gift” and yet also claiming that one must accept God’s “sacrifice” in order to be saved. If it’s the latter, then salvation is not a “free gift”.

      “Deut. 24:16 and passages in Ezekiel 18 are talking about specific sins – actions of sin and that the government or church cannot punish a child for what the parent did.

      Original sin is different.”

      How is it “different”? You are blaming someone for a sin they did not commit and which was actually somehow “inherited” from an ancestor.

      “1. Inherited corruption – we inherit the corruption (the selfishness, pride, lusts, wickedness) that causes us to sin later, when a young child.
      2. Original guilt – We are guilty in Adam, because we all came from Adam, and we do the same things (sins) –”

      Oy vei! That is the same as punishing the child for the sins of the father, you dolt!

      And if we simply “inherited” the “corruption”, that is hardly our fault. Would you blame a child with muscular dystrophy or cystic fibrosis because he inherited the disease from his parents?

      And how exactly do we inherit the “guilt” from Adam, simply by coming from him?

      We do the “same things”? Oh really? Did Adam commit murder? Did he commit rape?

      Face it you clown. You cannot offer any logical answer. It’s just a bunch of baloney.

      “For the eternal Son of God to enter into humanity was a big deal. That is why Muslims object to it, precisely because it is such a massive big deal. Both the incarnation and atonement are so big, eternal, that it blows our minds.”

      Uh no, not really. Nearly every pagan religion believed that their so-called “gods” “entered into humanity”. So when Christians claim that their old god came down as a man, they are not making some new claim. Pagans have claimed that for millennia.

      Liked by 2 people

  36. 7. What is left for God to forgive? . . .

    This is the same question / issue as # 4. See # 4.
    Repentance and Faith (Trust) is the way God set it up by revelation in Scripture.

    8. The Jesus story isn’t even remarkable within mythology. 

    Unless you somehow think mythology is true. As an unbeliever, you cannot see the spiritual truth of the eternal weight and significance of God the Son becoming human and then voluntarily paying the price of justice for our sins.

    That is your problem, not mine.

    “the natural man cannot understand the things of the Spirit – for they are foolish to him . . . 1 Cor. 2:14

    9. The Bible itself rejects God’s savage “justice.” . . .

    10 For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.”
    11 While they were listening to these things, Jesus went on to tell a parable, because He was near Jerusalem, and they supposed that the kingdom of God was going to appear immediately.

    Luke 19:10-11

    The author of these 10 points brings up the parable of the prodical son in Luke 15, but the author (and Muslims) misunderstand the parable in the context of the entire book of Luke:
    Luke 9:31; 9:51; 12:50; 13:32-35; 13:22; 17:11; 18:31; 19:11; 19:28:19:41045; 21:20-24; 24:46-47

    The whole theme is how the Son of Man had to go to Jerusalem to be the eternal sacrifice for sins.

    The harlots and the tax-collectors came to Jesus because they realized their own sins and came to Him for forgiveness – Luke 15:1-2

    The parable shows the repentance son realizes his sins and returns; but the older brother represents the Pharisees (and most Muslims who are not “getting it”) – and the author of this article who does not “get it”.

    10. The entire story is incoherent. Let’s try to stumble through the drunken logic behind the Jesus story.
    God made mankind imperfect and inherently vulnerable to sin. Living a sinless life is impossible, so hell becomes unavoidable. That is, God creates people knowing for certain that they’re going to deserve eternity in hell when they die. Why create people that he knew would be destined for eternal torment?
    But don’t worry—God sacrificed Jesus, one of the persons of God, so mankind could go to heaven instead.
    So God sacrificed himself to himself so we could bypass a rule that God made himself and that God deliberately designed us to never be able to meet? I can’t even understand that; I certainly feel no need to praise God for something so nonsensical. It’s like an abused wife thanking her abuser. We can just as logically curse God for consigning us to hell from birth.
    Perhaps I can be forgiven for being unimpressed by the crucifixion story.

    Of course you cannot understand it. You are blind and dead in your sins.

    18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
    19 For it is written,
    “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
    And the cleverness of the clever I will set aside.”

    20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
    21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.
    22 For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom;

    23 but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, [and to Muslims and to this secular skeptic / agnostic or atheist who wrote the article]

    24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

    26 For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble;
    27 but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong,
    28 and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are,
    29 so that no man may boast before God.

    30 But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, [v]and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption,

    31 so that, just as it is written, “Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

    1 Corinthians 1:18-31
    explains why

    as does 1 Cor. 2:14-16

    Like

    • “Unless you somehow think mythology is true. As an unbeliever, you cannot see the spiritual truth of the eternal weight and significance of God the Son becoming human and then voluntarily paying the price of justice for our sins.”

      Maybe he doesn’t see it because he is not a brainwashed Christian heathen, and because he has no logical reason to do so anyway.

      “The harlots and the tax-collectors came to Jesus because they realized their own sins and came to Him for forgiveness – Luke 15:1-2”

      Where does it say they came to him for forgiveness? Luke 15:1 says that they came to hear him speak.

      “The parable shows the repentance son realizes his sins and returns; but the older brother represents the Pharisees (and most Muslims who are not “getting it”) – and the author of this article who does not “get it”.”

      LOL! Actually, I think you don’t “get it”. There is nothing in the parable about repentance being made possible only when coupled with some sort of moronic “eternal” sacrifice that wasn’t even eternal. Luke seems to emphasize repentance. There is nothing there about a mangod dying for mankind’s sins being the only way for that repentance to be accepted.

      “Of course you cannot understand it. You are blind and dead in your sins.”

      Translation: You are not a brainwashed Christian heathen, so that’s why you don’t accept Christianity.

      Liked by 1 person

  37. @ Ken

    If God has emphasized that He is One and the only thing to worship since the beginning who are you, Oh Christian to make him a human and change that?

    21:23. He is not questioned about what He does, they will be ˹the ones˺ questioned.
    21:24. So have they taken other gods instead of Him? Tell them: “Get over here and BRING YOUR PROOF! This is the Message for those who are with me and the Message of those who came before me.” But most of them don’t know the Truth, so they ignore it.
    21:25. I’ve never sent any Messenger before you without revealing to him: “There is no god but Me, so only worship Me.”
    21:26. Yet they claim: “The Most Merciful has children.” Pure is He! Rather they are His honored servants.

    If God created you by Himself and allowed many of His servants reach Him directly such as Abraham, Moses and David who are you, Oh Christian, to deny that?

    If God has bestowed you with a brain and heart who are you then oh Christian to not use that?

    If a belief system cannot even be consistent within its own theology who are you then Oh Christian to blindly follow that?

    You have skipped my question as it refutes Christianity’s falsehood and the entire foundations of Christianity come crashing down. The easiest answer is Jesus(as) was a prophet who the people went to the extreme with and developed many false doctrines around. It’s a much simpler answer than any of the garbage your spewing. On the Day of Judgement Jesus(as) will deny you before creation if you continue worshipping him. God only guides those who are truly sincere so worship Him alone with no other partners Ken.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Abraham and Moses and David were all trusting in the future Messiah, who would be the eternal and final sacrifice for sin.

      John 8:65-58

      John 5:46

      Psalm 51 – both the application of the blood on the hyssop branch and the temple sacrifices and true heart repentance, pointed to the NT principles of 1. repentance and faith and 2. Trusting in Christ as the final sacrifice for sin. Romans 3:19-26; Romans chapters 3- 4 – the OT sacrifices pointed to the final sacrifice in Messiah.

      Like

      • Show me where Abraham speaks of a future messiah

        Like

      • Jesus said it in John 8:56-58
        Abraham rejoiced to see My day.

        In Genesis 15:1-6
        Abraham was trusting in the One true God (the LORD, Yahweh) AND the promise of giving him a son who would come from his own body – this is the Jewish idea of the Messiah who would crush the serpent’s head (Genesis 3:15) and be a blessing to all the nations (Genesis 12:3, 22:17-18 – that He would be the lamb that God would provide – as Abraham told his son as they walked along, Genesis 22:7-8

        Like

      • so there is no actual mention of a “messiah” at all.

        Like

      • Show me any of the verses that modern Rabbinic Jews (those that deny Jesus is Messiah) use for their understanding of the Messiah: (this list is from the Jews for Judaism website)

        (See Isaiah 2:1-4, Micha 4:1-4, Hoseah 2:18, Isaiah 32:16-18, 60:18; Zechariah 8:23, Isaiah 60:3, 61:6,9; Zechariah 14:9,11; Psalm 86:9, Zephaniah 3:9, Isaiah 66:23, Jeremiah 31:33-34, Ezekiel 11:19-20, 36:26-27, Deuteronomy 30: 1-9, Isaiah 11:12, 40:11, 43:5,6, 49:12,18,22, 60:4, 66:20, Jeremiah 3:18, 30:3, 31:7, 32:37, Ezekiel 11:17, 20:41, 34:13, 36:24, etc.)

        I have studied them, and the word Messiah is not there either. Look them up for yourself.

        Like

      • thanks for proving my point. Abraham never mentioned a messiah. So you are wrong.

        Like

      • But Jesus and the NT say that the meaning of those texts in the OT is about the Messiah – Psalm 2, Daniel 9, Isaiah 52:13-15; 53:1-12; Micah 5:2 ff; Genesis 12:1-3; 15:1-6; 22:17-18; 26:4; 28:14; 49:10; etc.

        Like

      • you concede the point then.

        Like

      • No; not in the way you are trying to say.

        Like

      • I did not prove your point; I showed that the word Messiah does not actually have to be in a text that is Messianic.

        Like

      • there is no messiah in Abraham’s life. The idea came about much later.

        Like

      • But infallible and perfect Jesus Al Masih عیسی المسیح gave us the proper understanding of him.
        John 8:56-58

        Like

      • but the gospels are not reliable as history Ken, so you point collapses.

        Like

      • Yes, they are reliable history. they are much more reliable than the Qur’an, because it is four eye-witnesses as in one person on each corner of a historical event, giving the details from his angle. 2 or 3 or 4 witnesses is better than one claim. Matthew was an eyewitness and John an eyewitness; Mark wrote Peter’s actions sermons, and Peter was an eyewitness; and Luke interviewed many eyewitnesses – Mary and the disciples and the other disciples who did not write a gospel. Luke was also Paul’s fellow missionary (a doctor), who wrote the book of Acts and has been verified as historically accurate. Sir William Ramsay and many others have verified Luke’s works historically.

        The Qur’an is just one man’s subjective claim; with lots of historical mistakes. (Surah 4:157; 6:101; 5:72-75; 5:116; 19:88-92)

        Like

      • “””because it is four eye-witnesses as in one person on each corner of a historical event, giving the details from his angle. 2 or 3 or 4 witnesses is better than one claim””””

        Buahahahhaa!!!!
        This guy is hilarious! He’ll repeat the same old plane lie about them being eyewitnesses. Like Matthew allegedly writing the gospel of Matthew and copying from non eyewitnesses. Wahahaha.
        This dude is utterly hopeless.

        Liked by 1 person

  38. 35 Jesus heard that they had put him out, and finding him, He said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?”
    36 He answered, “Who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?”
    37 Jesus said to him, “You have both seen Him, and He is the one who is talking with you.”
    38 And he said, “Lord, I believe.” And he worshiped Him. 39 And Jesus said, “For judgment I came into this world, so that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind.”
    40 Those of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these things and said to Him, “We are not blind too, are we?”
    41 Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, ‘We see,’ your sin remains.

    John 9:35-41

    Your constant mockery of the main points of previous revelation, the incarnation and atonement, demonstrates that you are blind and spiritually dead in your sins.

    Like

    • nearly all NT historians do not consider this is likely to be historical.

      Like

      • No. Only the liberal ones. (Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, the old liberals like Schleirmacher, Rudolph Bultmann, Walter Bauer, C. H. Dodd, etc.)

        maybe some who claim to be conservative, but fudge on issues like this. The homosexual Dale B. Martin, Christopher Tuckett, or J.D.G. Dunn are not conservative, neither is Roman Catholic Raymond Brown.

        You would have to show specifically where they say that John 9:35-41 is not historical.

        Since it is God-breathed Scripture, therefore infallible and inerrant, therefore it is historical truth.

        Unlike Islam that the author of the Qur’an did not know established history. (Surah 4:157) and was ignorant of what Christians believed for 600 years.

        (Surah 6:101; 19:88-92; 5:72-75; 5:116)

        These prove Islam is false.

        Like

      • Actually conservative scholars too say the same like Richard Baukham. So you are wrong.

        Like

      • actually Bauckham says the Gospel of John was from an eyewitness.

        Like

      • He also says that the story has been substantially embellished by him. So you are wrong.

        Like

      • Bauckham writes that the author of the Gospel according to John was an eyewitness and follower of Jesus and at those key events that he records in his gospel, although a different “John” than the son of Zebedee, and not one of the 12. But Bauckham still believes he is an eyewitness and so historically accurate.

        See pages 14-17 of his book,
        “The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple”

        https://books.google.com/books?id=QQzjDM_L7-oC&q=I+present+the+case+for#v=snippet&q=I%20present%20the%20case%20for&f=false

        Like

      • Wrong. He states that it is a highly interpreted account.

        Like

      • wrong; he wrote that he was an eyewitness of those historical events with Jesus.

        Like

      • The bible does not claim to be inspired. Fact.

        Like

      • Yes it does. 2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:19-21; John 16:12-15; 14:26

        Like

      • No. Not one of those passage is referring to your Bible Ken.

        Like

      • Yes they do; because Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would bring everything to the disciples remembrance, and teach them all things necessary, and guide them into all the truth. John chapters 14-16; and 2 Peter 1:19-21; 3:1 and 1:12-17 and Jude 3 and the rest of NT fulfill that promise that Jesus made to his disciples / apostles.

        Like

      • Your potato book doesn’t claim to be inspired.
        The authors do bot claim they are inspired to WRITE. NT isn’t written by the desciples so even trying to use your Holy spirit argument is erroneous.
        Seriously??? We are still playing this game of “the authors are the desciples” game? Are you kidding me? When will you ever grow up!

        Liked by 1 person

      • Ken is a fundamentalist robot on autopilot. He repeats the same lines over and over. He has no idea how he looks to others.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Exactly! If this was the other way around (not knowing where the Qur’an came from and knowing where the bible came from) these christians would be ALL OVER IT! Unfortunately for them that’s not the case.

        Liked by 1 person

  39. @ Ken

    Abraham(as), David(as) and Moses(as) are in the Children of Israel. So that answers nothing regarding my question regarding nations outside of Israel. Also, they were not idolaters who worshipped a human.

    Liked by 1 person

Trackbacks

  1. Brother Stew Refutes Christianity in One Post – The Quran and Bible Blog
  2. Brother Stew Refutes Christianity in One Post – Blogging Theology

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: