The Achilles heel of the New Testament

The risen Jesus in Luke 24 explains to the disciples on the road to Emmaus that the sufferings of the Messiah are all foretold in the Old Testament (24: 26-7), and this motif is repeated in Acts (Acts 3:18; 17:3; 26:23).

It is in fact not easy to find much about a ‘messianic’ figure explicitly in the Old Testament anywhere; but there is certainly nothing about a suffering messianic figure.  (Appeals to the description of the suffering servant figure in Isaiah 53 are not relevant here: the figure of Isaiah 53 is not said to be a messianic figure).

The claim that ‘the Messiah must suffer’ seems to be a Lukan innovation, at least insofar as it makes the explicit claim that suffering is predicted of ‘the Messiah’ in Jewish scripture.

From: Christology and the New Testament: Jesus and His Earliest Followers by Christopher Tuckett, page 142. Tuckett is Professor of New Testament Studies at Oxford University.

 



Categories: Gospels, New Testament scholarship

Tags:

84 replies

  1. What makes this far worse is even if the Christians could explain why Luke invented the concept of a suffering Messiah, they still have to explain the conundrum of believing in a God who required the Messiah to suffer for the forgiveness of ours sins and yet also explaining what the plan of salvation was for the previous nations that came before the Messiah.

    Lest we forget:

    https://bloggingtheology2.com/2019/02/25/10-reasons-the-crucifixion-story-makes-no-sense/comment-page-1/#comment-3258

    This is the real Achilles heel of Christianity.

    https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2019/03/10/brother-stew-refutes-christianity-in-one-post/

    Liked by 3 people

  2. Given the fact that Lukan theology is not about the atonement by Jesus’ blood, why did he insist about the idea of the suffering Messiah? In other words, what does this concept (i.e. the suffering Messiah) imply for Luke?

    Liked by 3 people

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    So, Christopher Tuckett is just wrong to argue that just because the word “Messiah” is not in Isaiah 53, that is is not about the Messiah.

    Daniel 9:24-27 Does have the word Messiah, and he will be “cut off” = killed

    Isaiah 53:8 says the suffering servant will be “cut off from the land of the living” = Killed.

    Jesus said He is that person. Many times in all four gospels.

    Like

    • As I said, Christians still have to explain the conundrum of believing in a God who required the Messiah to suffer for the forgiveness of ours sins and yet also explaining what the plan of salvation was for the previous nations that came before the Messiah.

      Lest we forget:

      https://bloggingtheology2.com/2019/02/25/10-reasons-the-crucifixion-story-makes-no-sense/comment-page-1/#comment-3258

      This is the real Achilles heel of Christianity.

      https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2019/03/10/brother-stew-refutes-christianity-in-one-post/

      We haven’t forgotten your terrible performance in explaining the grand contradiction in your religion.

      Like

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

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

      You have to learn to read carefully. Here is what Tuckett said:

      “The claim that ‘the Messiah must suffer’ seems to be a Lukan innovation, at least insofar as it makes the explicit claim that suffering is predicted of ‘the Messiah’ in Jewish scripture.

      Liked by 1 person

      • And yet Daniel 9:24-27 makes that explicit claim about the Messiah, that he would be “cut off” and Isaiah 53:8 says the same thing about the Suffering Servant, so the Jewish Scripture does make the explicit claim, and Professor Tuckett is wrong.

        Like

      • Jumping around again?

        Daniel 9 referred to events during the Seleucid occupation of Palestine. So you’re wrong.

        Like

      • “There are a number of important facts about the first section of this prophecy. First, some have argued that the text is not speaking of years, but weeks or months. However, the Hebrew word shabuim, the context (Daniel 9:2; 10:3), Jeremiah’s prophecy (Jeremiah 25:10-14; 29:10-14), the nature of the captivity, and the translation in the Mishna each indicate that years are in view.4 Biblical chronologist Harold Hoehner wisely concludes, “The term shabuim in Daniel 9 most reasonably refers to a unit of seven years. To make it anything else does not make good sense.”5 Second, the seventy years begins at 605 B.C., which was the time of the first deportation of the Jews to Babylon. Third, this section indicates that there are 490 years cut out for the times of the Gentiles. Fruchtenbaum summarizes this portion well, “This 490-year period had been ‘determined’ or ‘decreed’ for the accomplishment of the final restoration of Israel and the establishment of the Messiah’s kingdom.”6” (Matt Slick, CARM)

        Daniel is talking about the 70 years of Babylonian Captivity in Daniel 9:2; so, in 9:24-27, he is talking about 70 periods of 7 years = 490 years; which brings us to the time of the Messiah.

        “Even the Jewish Rabbi Rashi interpreted the text as referring to events in the first century relating to the Messiah.31 [Michael Brown documented this, see the CARM article] The passage even uses the word Messiah! ”

        From Matt Slick’s CARM website.

        https://carm.org/does-daniel-9-24-27-predict-jesus#footnote31_7x7z1ji

        Like

      • Pure garbage which I have previously refuted.

        According to Daniel 9:25, there would be 69 “sevens” (i.e. weeks), which in the context of the chapter refers to 69 periods of seven years each,[205] from the decree to rebuild Jerusalem and the coming of the “Anointed One”. In total, “seventy sevens” or 490 years were to pass before the Jews would be redeemed.[206] The prophecy also states that the “Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing”, which Christians interpret as referring to the crucifixion of Jesus (peace be upon him),[207] followed by the destruction of Jerusalem and the placing of the “abomination that causes desolation” in the temple, which they interpret as referring to the Roman conquest of Jerusalem in 70 CE.[208]

        However, the context simply does not allow for such an interpretation. In fact, the events described in Daniel 9 can be reliably traced to historical events which occurred during the struggle between the Jews and the Seleucids in the 2nd-century BCE, and not the 1st-century CE. As Hammer explains:

        “…the final week (i.e. seven years) is the crucial period, starting with the murder of Onias III, the high priest (described as the removal of ‘one who is anointed’ in verse 26) in 171 B.C. Halfway through this period has occurred the desecration of the temple, when Antiochus ‘put a stop to sacrifice and offering’ (verse 27).”[209]

        Furthermore, “The Jewish Study Bible” observes regarding the “Anointed One” that (emphasis in the original):

        “[i]n the context of the other historical references…the anointed leader probably refers to either Zerubbabel or the high priest Joshua (Ezra 3.2; Hag. ch 1; Zech. 6.9-15, while the anointed one is most likely the high priest Onias III, killed in 171 BCE (2 Macc. 4.30-34).”[210]

        Another reason the prophecy cannot be referring to Jesus (peace be upon him) is that the death of the “Anointed One” was supposed to happen 62 weeks (434 years) after the declaration to rebuild Jerusalem. The year of Jesus’ alleged death is not known with any certainty, though Christians generally settle for the year 30 CE. However, since Christians also cannot ascertain with certainty as to when the declaration to rebuild Jerusalem was even made, only through generous assumptions can they finagle the chronology of events to coincide (and only roughly at that!) with the approximate year of Jesus’ death! For example, Christian apologist Matt Slick admits:

        “…there is much debate among scholars regarding the decree to which Daniel is referring. There does not seem to be an easy solution.”[211]

        He and other apologists generally settle on the year 457 BCE as the most likely date of the declaration, but even with that assumption, the prophecy fails to complete the full 483 years required, since 483 minus 457 equals 26. In other words, the death of the “Anointed One” should have occurred in the year 26 CE. But, the earliest date for Jesus’ death is assumed to be 30 CE![212]

        Moreover, as Chris Sandoval notes, the Christian interpretation ignores the clear parallels between chapters 8 and 9, the former of which definitely refers to the tyranny of Antiochus IV.[213] Thus, the interpretation posited by Christians is rather fanciful.[214] It is clear that the correct interpretation is that the prophecy was referring to events in the 2nd-century BCE.

        Finally, let us briefly discuss the appeals made by some Christian apologists to the famous Jewish commentator Rashi and his explanation of Daniel 9.[215] First and foremost, the apologists point to Rashi’s explanation of Daniel 9 in “Messianic” terms, and use that as proof that since Jesus (peace be upon him) claimed to be the Messiah, Daniel 9 must be referring to him since it is “Messianic”.[216] However, this view has serious flaws when we actually read Rashi’s commentary.

        First of all, the “Anointed One” of Daniel 9:25 was identified by Rashi as Cyrus the Great, and not the king Messiah, while the “Anointed One” who was to be “put to death” was identified as Agrippa, who was king of Judea as the time of the Roman conquest of Jerusalem in 70 CE.[217] Thus, Rashi was only referring to events he believed were to occur before the coming of the king Messiah, not during his life or after (since the conquest of Jerusalem actually happened after the time of Jesus). The actual reign of the Messiah, according to Rashi, was to occur sometime in the future.[218] Moreover, since we know from the text that the time of the end was to occur very shortly after the second “Anointed One” was to be “put to death”, there is absolutely no possibility of applying this prophecy to Jesus anyway. Also, Rashi claimed that the “abomination that causes desolation” was to remain on the Temple grounds until “the days of the king Messiah”, but it is of course well known that the pagan altar that the Romans set-up after the conquest has long disappeared from history.[219]

        https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2016/09/16/the-book-of-daniel/

        Liked by 2 people

      • Your article is filled with many flaws.

        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. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined.

        Daniel 9:26
        Problem with the Jewish study Bible comments is that your argumentation does not explain the destruction of the city and the temple (sanctuary) – that was not done by Antiochus IV Epiphanes around 167 BC,. He offered a pig to an idol of Zeus in the temple, desecrating it; but he did not destroy the temple or city, as the Romans did in 70 AD.

        The 26 AD date is good for the appearing of the Messiah, the Prince and His anointing by the Holy Spirit at His baptism (483 years from 457 BC.
        Then in the middle of the next 7 years, 3 and 1/2 years later, he is cut off – around 30 AD. After another 3 and 1/2 years, Saul is converted and takes the gospel to the Gentile nations. The abominations and destruction of the city and the temple are decreed by Jesus in the year 30, a week before He is crucified. (Matthew 23:36-24:3)

        Like

      • You’re a brainwashed zombie.

        Watch from 21:46.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Almost midnight where I am. Maybe, Lord willing, I will watch tomorrow and respond.

        Like

      • I watched. Nothing new there. Conservatives also agree that Daniel 11:1-35 is about the events from Persia to Alexander the Great to details about Ptolemy and Seleucids and Antiochus IV Epiphanes, only that we actually believe that the prophet Daniel accurately predicted those things from around 530 BC. (not looking back on them around 167-165 BC, etc.) The lecturer’s anti-supernatural bias is palpable.

        Like

      • And conservatives shoot themselves in the foot, because as the lecturer pointed out, the so-called “prophet” got some information right (not all of it), he failed to accurately “predict” Antiochus’ death because he writing before that happened. Ergo, the book of Daniel is falsified by its false prophecy.

        There are many other problems with the book. There are historical errors, inconsistencies and contradictions that prove the inspired nature of this book.

        Like

      • No. Most take Daniel 11:36-45 as a jump to “the end of time” (v. 35 “until the end of time”), about some kind of Anti-Christ / man of lawlessness figure as in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-11. (similar to the Islamic idea of the Dajjal الدجال )

        There are some apparent difficulties in Daniel, but there are good answers from conservative scholars.

        Like

      • Only brainwashed conservatives believe that. The context shows that the “end” would come at the end of the 70 weeks with the death of the king (Antiochus).

        Like

      • No; as Daniel 11 is a different context than Daniel 9:24-27.

        Jesus makes that clear in Matthew 23:36-39; 24:1-3; 24:15 (“when you see the abomination of desolations spoken by the prophet Daniel . . . “)

        So Daniel 9:26 is about future 70 AD.
        Daniel 11:20-35 is about Antiochus IV Epiphanies

        Daniel 11:36-45 is about some kind of end-time Anti-Christ figure.

        Like

      • It’s the same context. You just cannot accept the facts. Everything in Daniel 9 and 11 can be linked to events in the 2nd century BCE. That’s not a coincidence.

        Like

      • no. 11:36 to chapter 12 relates to the end times.

        12:2 is proof. about the day of resurrection. (Revelation chapters 20, 21, 22

        Daniel 12:4 also – “seal up the book until the end of time”, etc.

        Like

      • Yes, Daniel 12 is proof that the end was supposed to come after the death of Antiochus. It didn’t. The Bible is falsified and Christianity is a false religion.

        Like

      • And yet, Jesus says that Daniel 9:26 is future to Him. ( = 70 AD – Matthew 24:15 (see 23:36-39; 24:1-3)

        Like

      • Or more likely, this was Matthew’s invention.

        Like

      • No, the Qur’an says the disciples of Jesus were true believers, helpers of Allah, and full of integrity.

        So Matthew is truthful. Jesus really said all that.

        Like

      • Circular argument. The gospel is anonymous you idiot. “Matthew” was some anonymous liar who made things up as he saw fit.

        Liked by 1 person

      • The gospel is not anonymous you kuffar.

        Like

      • nope. Since the true God is the God of the Bible and yours is 600 years later and false just a human claim, you are wrong. It is your religion that rejects the true God.

        Like

      • Another circular argument. Your silly Bible is a laughing stock and your god is an old man.

        Like

      • Oh and it’s kafir (singular) not kuffar (plural). Kenny’s Arabic lesson of the day!

        Liked by 1 person

      • Yes, you are right about that. Kafir کافر .
        شما کافر هستید

        Like

      • After the seven sevens and 62 sevens;

        That this sixty-two week period brings us from the days of Ezra (about 445 BC) to the time immediately
        before the public ministry of Jesus (30 AD), is also evident when Daniel speaks of a “prince to come”
        who, as a consequence of the coming of the Messiah, will destroy the city–i.e., Jerusalem, at or about the
        time the anointed one is “cut off” (crucified).
        11
        The historical record is clear that Roman armies, led by
        Titus, destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in A.D. 70. The people of Israel subsequently were driven to
        the ends of the earth in the great diaspora. Jesus himself foretold of this in Luke 21:20 using language
        taken directly from Daniel 9:26. “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its
        desolation has come near.” What Daniel foretold, “its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there
        shall be war. Desolations are decreed,” is fulfilled by the Roman siege of Jerusalem in AD 70 with a
        frightening accuracy.
        12
        Desolation decreed–indeed. Read the account of this in Josephus’ Jewish Wars
        to see the horrors of the Roman siege and the degree of in-fighting among the defenders.

        Like

      • You just showed how stupid Christians are. Notice how you say “about 445 BC”! You have no idea where to even start! So you begin with some arbitrary year. This proves how subjective and biased your reading of the Bible is.

        Like

      • Some commentators do start with that date. It was a quote from Pastor’s Kim Riddlebarger’s paper.

        Like

      • Exactly and they have no basis to do that. It’s entirely arbitrary. Christians have shown themselves to be unreliable and deceptive.

        Like

      • It is not arbitrary since there are 3 famous decrees of Persian kings in those days.
        The decree of Cyrus to go back to the land and rebuilt the temple. (539 BC)
        The decree of Artaxerxes under Ezra. 457-458 BC
        The 2nd decree of ArtaXerxes under Nehemiah’s ministry. 445-444 BC.

        Like

      • You cannot assign a specific year to any of those “decrees” with any reliability. So yes, it’s all arbitrary.

        Like

      • Except the 457-458 BC one takes us to 26 AD, when Jesus is manifested and anointed at His baptism. Pretty amazing.

        Like

      • Lol yeah, amazing if you’re a gullible Christian named Kenny.

        Like

  4. Daniel 9:26 has to be read in context.

    “After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing.[g] The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. 27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’[h] In the middle of the ‘seven’[i] he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple[j] he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.[k]”

    How would the king “destroy” the city and sanctuary and yet also set-up a pagan altar there? It’s clear that the “destruction” being spoken of is the Seleucid attack on Jerusalem and the subsequent occupation.

    Liked by 1 person

    • In context is what I am arguing for. Seventy years of Exile is the context (Daniel 9:1-3 – Daniel is noting that the 70 years of exile are almost over. Then in 9:24-27 there is a revelation of prophesy of 70 X 7 = seventy periods of seven years = 490 years.

      Brings us to around 26 AD – until the manifestation of Messiah the Prince ( baptism, anointing by the Holy Spirit) (verse 25)

      then this Messiah will be cut off and die. (verse 26)

      Then the temple will be destroyed – (40 years later, 70 AD – decreed – predicted by Jesus in Matthew 23:36-39; 24:1-3; 24:15 – “when you see the abomination of desolations, spoken of by the prophet Daniel . . . ”

      Jesus confirms that 70 AD and the destruction of the temple was predicted by Daniel the prophet in Daniel 9:23-27

      Before they destroyed the temple, the Romans desecrated the temple with their paganism.

      Verse 24 points to truth of what the final atonement of Christ accomplished:

      “Seventy sevens (70 x 7 = 490 years) have been decreed for your people and your holy city,
      to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity,

      (all three are ways of expressing the finality of the final and powerful atonement of Christ on the cross for sin and guilt)

      to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy one.

      (the last three refer to the reality of being forgiven and declared righteous by faith in Christ (Gal. 2:16; Romans 1:16-17; 3:28; 4:1-16; 5:1; 2 Cor. 5:21; Philippians 3:9; Ephesians 2:8-9; John 5:24; 3:16; 11:25; Acts 13:38-39; 16:31; and the finality of vision and prophesy – no more revelation after Jude 3 and Hebrews 1:1-3 and book of Revelation indicate; and the anointing of Christ in His baptism and His coronation as king at the right hand of the Father.

      Like

      • You just repeated the same garbage that I already refuted. You have to be the biggest idiot in the world to not see the historical context of these so-called “visions”.

        Your claimed that Daniel 9:26 doesn’t make sense if Antiochus is the king referred to, because he didn’t “destroy” Jerusalem and the temple. I showed that, when read in context, it makes perfect sense. By sacking Jerusalem and installing the pagan altar, Antiochus had brought destruction upon the holy city. That is why the pagan altar was called the “abomination that causes desolation”.

        Like

      • “We also should take note of the fact that the verb used here, “cut off” is kârat, which is used in Genesis
        15:10, 18 in regard to the covenant ratification ceremony when the animals were cut in two in Abram’s
        dream. The animals were “cut off” (i.e., killed).
        A similar verb is used by Isaiah to refer to the suffering
        messianic servant yet to come (Isaiah 53:8). “By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for
        his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the
        transgression of my people?” In light of the larger purpose of the seventy weeks prophecy, there can be
        little doubt that it is Jesus who was “cut off” as a means, in part, of accomplishing the six things which bring seventy weeks to their fulfillment.” Pastor Kim Riddlebager

        Like

  5. The psalms also contain the sufferings of Christ.

    “Still doesn’t answer the conundrum. The nations did not know about the Israelites for thousands of years or about your mangod and his alleged redemptive death. For thousands of years, human being have come and gone without the need for a dying Messiah.”

    The Messiah was promised in the protoevangelium. Given to Adam after he sinned. The burnt offering prefigured his work.

    Mankind always had a need for the Messiah whether they knew it or not.

    Like

    • @ Erasmus

      I think you’re missing the point of my question, originally Israel was supposed to do sacrifices, etc alright cool for the sake of discussion I’ll run with it, the world is much bigger than Israel how did the rest of the nations in Japan, the Americas, Europe, Africa etc. go to Heaven? They had no concept of God, a sacrifice system or a Messiah.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I think these guys are really struggling with this issue. They have no idea how to respond, so they resort to strawman arguments.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Both Noah and Job and his friends, also Abraham, had knowledge of God and they offered burn offerings.

        God spoke with them. He could do this to anyone he wished. How do you know that they were the only ones?

        Like

      • So are you claiming that your god communicated with all the nations of the earth? Did he send prophets to them?

        It never ceases to amaze me how the same people who screech “sola scriptural!”, quickly abandon that mantra when faced with a conundrum such as this. Your Bible says nothing about God speaking to anyone outside of the Middle East, not even a hint of it.

        Noah had knowledge because God spoke to him, but does the Bible say that God sent Noah to tell the sinners to repent? No.

        Abraham spoke with God. But he became the ancestor of the Israelites and Arabs only. Who else could trace their lineage through him?

        Job lived in the land of Us. Where is that land? The Bible doesn’t say but scholars speculate that it in the close to Jordan and Iraq.

        So you have presented nothing to answer the question.

        Liked by 2 people

  6. I love how kens wall of text comments get destroyed every single time…sad really.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. @ QB

    Man stop trying to give them Arabic lessons when these guys are struggling with English reading comprehension. Walk before we run…

    Liked by 1 person

  8. There could have been Jobs all over the world for all we know.

    We have no historical source for any islamic “prophets”.

    Like

  9. @ Erasmus
    Well pretty easy:

    1.This is all subject to conjecture on your part and this has no proof from the Bible. It for all intents and purposes portraits God as a national god of Israel only.
    2. We have no record of Japan for example offering burnt sacrifices to the God of Abraham(as) if you know any please share. Also make sure when you do its before Jesus(as) and the people had no interaction with the Jews.
    3. You concede other people had knowledge of God (and thus concede about prophets being sent to other nations) so this means they had a proper relationship with God and thus proves God didn’t need anyone to forgive mankind

    Like

    • I don’t see any evidence that knowledge of God requires what you call a “prophet”.

      Do you mean a warner or something?

      If God speaks to someone is he a prophet?

      Can’t your Allah speak?

      It is all very confusing.

      Like

      • Iggy needs to deflect to Islam because he cannot answer the conundrum facing his religion.

        As I already showed, your Bible says nothing about God speaking to any nation other than Israel. So, what was the plan of salvation for those nations?

        Liked by 1 person

  10. “and thus concede about prophets being sent to other nations)”

    A good example of conjecture.

    Like

  11. “As I already showed, your Bible says nothing about God speaking to any nation other than Israel. So, what was the plan of salvation for those nations?”

    We have evidence in the bible that africans visited Israel and became proselytes.

    The Ethiopian eunech is an example.

    Like

  12. @ Erasmus
    Not really that confusing. The only way one normally gets knowledge of God is through the prophets. Monotheism is mentioned through a variety of cultures burnt sacrifices are not.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Genesis 4 v 26

      And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos:

      then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.

      This is monotheism.

      Also no prophets to be seen here, whether islamic or otherwise.

      No geographic constraints either.

      Which islamic prophet gave knowledge of God to Job, Noah or Abraham?

      There is only one monotheistic God in the bible, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. That excludes Allah.

      Like

      • Your desperation is palpable. You are frantically looking for something in your Bible to answer the question, and everytime you get refuted, you run away and come back with some other preposterous answer.

        Your latest appeal to Genesis 4 only makes things worse. First of all, what other “men” were there on the earth at that time? Adam and his family were the first ones! So your Bible contradicts itself.

        Second, even if there were other people, how does that answer the question concerning people that loved thousands of years after Adam and never even heard of him?

        So the conundrum still stands. Your pathetic Iggy.

        Liked by 1 person

  13. “Monotheism is mentioned through a variety of cultures burnt sacrifices are not.”

    lol

    Exodus 3 v 18 And they shall hearken to thy voice: and thou shalt come, thou and the elders of Israel, unto the king of Egypt, and ye shall say unto him, The LORD God of the Hebrews hath met with us: and now let us go, we beseech thee, three days’ journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to the LORD our God.

    Like

  14. @ Erasmus

    You do know music and partying had to eventually be invented right?

    But anyways since you brought up “myth-making” up I guess this is all a historical drama:

    1. Animals were originally vegetarians before manned sinned (Genesis 1:30)
    2. Angels saw women and mated with them creating giants (Genesis 6:1–4)
    3. Women received a period because of the fall (Genesis 3:16)
    4. Let’s not forget about the “giants” that Moses(as) is supposed to go to war with. (Numbers 13:1–2; 21; 27–28; 32–33)

    Finally back to our original question what happened to those nations (aka the majority of humankind ever) outside of Israel before Jesus(as)?

    Liked by 1 person

Trackbacks

  1. Passages in the Old Testament that modern Jewish people say is about the Messiah | Apologetics and Agape
  2. The “Anointed One” Will Be “Cut-Off”: A Response to Ken Temple and The Christian Abuse of Daniel 9:26 – The Quran and Bible Blog
  3. Feature Article: The “Anointed One” Will Be “Cut-Off”: A Response to Ken Temple and The Christian Abuse of Daniel 9:26 – 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: