Why Jews don't believe in JESUS!

[Dr.Trax]

:sl:

For 2,000 years Jews have rejected the Christian idea of Jesus as messiah. Why?

In the wake of Mel Gibson's phenomenally successful film and the production company's ambitious plans to market the film worldwide to "the faithless," taking advantage of what is perhaps "the best Christian outreach opportunity in 2,000 years," it is important for Jews to understand why we don't believe in Jesus.


The purpose is not to disparage other religions, but rather to clarify the Jewish position.


Jews do not accept Jesus as the messiah because:


1) Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies.

2) Jesus did not embody the personal qualifications of the Messiah.

3) Biblical verses "referring" to Jesus are mistranslations.

4) Jewish belief is based on national revelation.

But first, some background: What exactly is the Messiah?


The word "Messiah" is an English rendering of the Hebrew word "Mashiach", which means "Anointed." It usually refers to a person initiated into God's service by being anointed with oil. (Exodus 29:7, I Kings 1:39, II Kings 9:3)


Since every King and High Priest was anointed with oil, each may be referred to as "an anointed one" (a Mashiach or a Messiah). For example: "God forbid that I [David] should stretch out my hand against the Lord's Messiah [Saul]..." (I Samuel 26:11. Cf. II Samuel 23:1, Isaiah 45:1, Psalms 20:6)


Where does the Jewish concept of Messiah come from? One of the central themes of Biblical prophecy is the promise of a future age of perfection characterized by universal peace and recognition of God. (Isaiah 2:1-4; Zephaniah 3:9; Hosea 2:20-22; Amos 9:13-15; Isaiah 32:15-18, 60:15-18; Micah 4:1-4; Zechariah 8:23, 14:9; Jeremiah 31:33-34)


Many of these prophetic passages speak of a descendant of King David who will rule Israel during the age of perfection. (Isaiah 11:1-9; Jeremiah 23:5-6, 30:7-10, 33:14-16; Ezekiel 34:11-31, 37:21-28; Hosea 3:4-5)


Since every King is a Messiah, by convention, we refer to this future anointed king as The Messiah. The above is the only description in the Bible of a Davidic descendant who is to come in the future. We will recognize the Messiah by seeing who the King of Israel is at the time of complete universal perfection.


1. JESUS DID NOT FULFILL THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES


What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? The Bible says that he will:


A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).

B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).

C. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)

D. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world -- on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).


If an individual fails to fulfill even one of these conditions, then he cannot be "The Messiah."


Because no one has ever fulfilled the Bible's description of this future King, Jews still await the coming of the Messiah. All past Messianic claimants, including Jesus of Nazareth, Bar Cochba and Shabbtai Tzvi have been rejected.


Christians counter that Jesus will fulfill these


in the Second Coming, but Jewish sources show that the Messiah will fulfill the prophecies outright; in the Bible no concept of a second coming exists. ________________________


2) JESUS DID NOT EMBODY THE PERSONAL QUALIFICATIONS OF MESSIAH


A. MESSIAH AS PROPHET


The Messiah will become the greatest prophet in history, second only to Moses. (Targum - Isaiah 11:2; Maimonides - Yad Teshuva 9:2)


Prophecy can only exist in Israel when the land is inhabited by a majority of world Jewry, a situation which has not existed since 300 BCE. During the time of Ezra, when the majority of Jews refused to move from Babylon to Israel, prophecy ended upon the death of the last prophets -- Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi.


Jesus was not a prophet; he appeared on the scene approximately 350 years after prophecy had ended.


B. DESCENDENT OF DAVID


According to Jewish sources, the Messiah will be born of human parents and possess normal physical attributes like other people. He will not be a demi-god, (1) nor will he possess supernatural qualities.


The Messiah must be descended on his father's side from King David (see Genesis 49:10, Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:17; Ezekiel 34:23-24). According to the Christian claim that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth, he had no father -- and thus could not have possibly fulfilled the messianic requirement of being descended on his father's side from King David. (2)


C. TORAH OBSERVANCE


The Messiah will lead the Jewish people to full Torah observance. The Torah states that all mitzvot remain binding forever, and anyone coming to change the Torah is immediately identified as a false prophet. (Deut. 13:1-4)


Throughout the New Testament, Jesus contradicts the Torah and states that its commandments are no longer applicable. For example, John 9:14 records that Jesus made a paste in violation of Shabbat, which caused the Pharisees to say (verse 16), "He does not observe Shabbat!"


____________________


3) MISTRANSLATED VERSES "REFERRING" TO JESUS


Biblical verses can only be understood by studying the original Hebrew text -- which reveals many discrepancies in the Christian translation.


A. VIRGIN BIRTH


The Christian idea of a virgin birth is derived from the verse in Isaiah 7:14 describing an "alma" as giving birth. The word "alma" has always meant a young woman, but Christian theologians came centuries later and translated it as "virgin." This accords Jesus' birth with the first century pagan idea of mortals being impregnated by gods.


B. SUFFERING SERVANT


Christianity claims that Isaiah chapter 53 refers to Jesus, as the "suffering servant."


In actuality, Isaiah 53 directly follows the theme of chapter 52, describing the exile and redemption of the Jewish people. The prophecies are written in the singular form because the Jews ("Israel") are regarded as one unit. Throughout Jewish scripture, Israel is repeatedly called, in the singular, the "Servant of God" (see Isaiah 43:8). In fact, Isaiah states no less than 11 times in the chapters prior to 53 that the Servant of God is Israel. When read correctly, Isaiah 53 clearly [and ironically] refers to the Jewish people being "bruised, crushed and as sheep brought to slaughter" at the hands of the nations of the world. These descriptions are used throughout Jewish scripture to graphically describe the suffering of the Jewish people (see Psalm 44). Isaiah 53 concludes that when the Jewish people are redeemed, the nations will recognize and accept responsibility for the inordinate suffering and death of the Jews.


For further reading, go to: http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq-ss.html


______________________


4) JEWISH BELIEF IS BASED SOLELY ON NATIONAL REVELATION


Throughout history, thousands of religions have been started by individuals, attempting to convince people that he or she is God's true prophet. But personal revelation is an extremely weak basis for a religion because one can never know if it is indeed true. Since others did not hear God speak to this person, they have to take his word for it. Even if the individual claiming personal revelation performs miracles, there is still no verification that he is a genuine prophet. Miracles do not prove anything. All they show -- assuming they are genuine -- is that he has certain powers. It has nothing to do with his claim of prophecy.


Judaism, unique among all of the world's major religions, does not rely on "claims of miracles" as the basis for its religion. In fact, the Bible says that God sometimes grants the power of "miracles" to charlatans, in order to test Jewish loyalty to the Torah (Deut. 13:4).


Of the thousands of religions in human history, only Judaism bases its belief on national revelation -- i.e. God speaking to the entire nation. If God is going to start a religion, it makes sense He'll tell everyone, not just one person.


Maimonides states (Foundations of Torah, ch. 8):

The Jews did not believe in Moses, our teacher, because of the miracles he performed. Whenever anyone's belief is based on seeing miracles, he has lingering doubts, because it is possible the miracles were performed through magic or sorcery. All of the miracles performed by Moses in the desert were because they were necessary, and not as proof of his prophecy. What then was the basis of [Jewish] belief? The Revelation at Mount Sinai, which we saw with our own eyes and heard with our own ears, not dependent on the testimony of others... as it says, "Face to face, God spoke with you..." The Torah also states: "God did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us -- who are all here alive today." (Deut. 5:3)

Judaism is not miracles. It is the personal eyewitness experience of every man, woman and child, standing at Mount Sinai 3,300 years ago.


For further reading: "Did God Speak at Mount Sinai?"


WAITING FOR THE MESSIAH


The world is in desperate need of Messianic redemption. And to the extent we are aware of the problems of society, is the extent we will yearn for redemption. As the Talmud says, one of the first questions asked of a Jew on Judgment Day is: "Did you yearn for the arrival of the Messiah?"


How can we hasten the coming of the Messiah? The best way is to love all humanity generously, to keep the mitzvot of the Torah (as best we can), and to encourage others to do so as well.


Despite the gloom, the world does seem headed toward redemption. One apparent sign is that the Jewish people have returned to the Land of Israel and made it bloom again. Additionally, a major movement is afoot of young Jews returning to Torah tradition.


The Messiah can come any day, and it all depends on our actions. God is ready when we are. For as King David says: "Redemption will come today -- if you hearken to His voice."


For further study visit: Jews for Judaism


See also:


"You Are My Witness: The Traditional Jewish Response to Christian Missionaries" A booklet in pdf format by Yisroel C. Blumenthal


"The Real Messiah," by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan


"The Path of the Righteous Gentile," by Chaim Clorfene and Yakov Rogalsky


FOOTNOTES


1.Maimonides devotes much of the "Guide for the Perplexed" to the fundamental idea that God is incorporeal, meaning that He assumes no physical form. God is Eternal, above time. He is Infinite, beyond space. He cannot be born, and cannot die. Saying that God assumes human form makes God small, diminishing both His unity and His divinity. As the Torah says: "God is not a mortal" (Numbers 23:19).


2. In response, it is claimed that Joseph adopted Jesus, and passed on his genealogy via adoption. There are two problems with this claim:

a) There is no Biblical basis for the idea of a father passing on his tribal line by adoption. A priest who adopts a son from another tribe cannot make him a priest by adoption;

b) Joseph could never pass on by adoption that which he doesn't have. Because Joseph descended from Jeconiah (Matthew 1:11) he fell under the curse of that king that none of his descendants could ever sit as king upon the throne of David. (Jeremiah 22:30; 36:30)

To answer this difficult problem, apologists claim that Jesus traces himself back to King David through his mother Mary, who allegedly descends from David, as shown in the third chapter of Luke. There are four basic problems with this claim:

a) There is no evidence that Mary descends from David. The third chapter of Luke traces Joseph's genealogy, not Mary's.

b) Even if Mary can trace herself back to David, that doesn't help Jesus, since tribal affiliation goes only through the father, not mother. Cf. Numbers 1:18; Ezra 2:59.

c) Even if family line could go through the mother, Mary was not from a legitimate Messianic family. According to the Bible, the Messiah must be a descendent of David through his son Solomon (II Samuel 7:14; I Chronicles 17:11-14, 22:9-10, 28:4-6). The third chapter of Luke is irrelevant to this discussion because it describes lineage of David's son Nathan, not Solomon. (Luke 3:31)

d) Luke 3:27 lists Shealtiel and Zerubbabel in his genealogy. These two also appear in Matthew 1:12 as descendants of the cursed Jeconiah. If Mary descends from them, it would also disqualify her from being a Messianic progenitor.

---------------

:w:

[Muhammad]

Just to clarify - this article is the Jewish perspective of why Jews do not believe in Jesus.

I had to remove the comment of the thread starter at the end as it was worded offensively.

[mkh4JC]

:sl:

For 2,000 years Jews have rejected the Christian idea of Jesus as messiah. Why?

In the wake of Mel Gibson's phenomenally successful film and the production company's ambitious plans to market the film worldwide to "the faithless," taking advantage of what is perhaps "the best Christian outreach opportunity in 2,000 years," it is important for Jews to understand why we don't believe in Jesus.


The purpose is not to disparage other religions, but rather to clarify the Jewish position.


Jews do not accept Jesus as the messiah because:


1) Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies.

2) Jesus did not embody the personal qualifications of the Messiah.

3) Biblical verses "referring" to Jesus are mistranslations.

4) Jewish belief is based on national revelation.

But first, some background: What exactly is the Messiah?


The word "Messiah" is an English rendering of the Hebrew word "Mashiach", which means "Anointed." It usually refers to a person initiated into God's service by being anointed with oil. (Exodus 29:7, I Kings 1:39, II Kings 9:3)


Since every King and High Priest was anointed with oil, each may be referred to as "an anointed one" (a Mashiach or a Messiah). For example: "God forbid that I [David] should stretch out my hand against the Lord's Messiah [Saul]..." (I Samuel 26:11. Cf. II Samuel 23:1, Isaiah 45:1, Psalms 20:6)


Where does the Jewish concept of Messiah come from? One of the central themes of Biblical prophecy is the promise of a future age of perfection characterized by universal peace and recognition of God. (Isaiah 2:1-4; Zephaniah 3:9; Hosea 2:20-22; Amos 9:13-15; Isaiah 32:15-18, 60:15-18; Micah 4:1-4; Zechariah 8:23, 14:9; Jeremiah 31:33-34)


Many of these prophetic passages speak of a descendant of King David who will rule Israel during the age of perfection. (Isaiah 11:1-9; Jeremiah 23:5-6, 30:7-10, 33:14-16; Ezekiel 34:11-31, 37:21-28; Hosea 3:4-5)


Since every King is a Messiah, by convention, we refer to this future anointed king as The Messiah. The above is the only description in the Bible of a Davidic descendant who is to come in the future. We will recognize the Messiah by seeing who the King of Israel is at the time of complete universal perfection.


1. JESUS DID NOT FULFILL THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES


What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? The Bible says that he will:


A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).

B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).

C. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)

[LEFT]D. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world -- on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).


If an individual fails to fulfill even one of these conditions, then he cannot be "The Messiah."


Because no one has ever fulfilled the Bible's description of this future King, Jews still await the coming of the Messiah. All past Messianic claimants, including Jesus of Nazareth, Bar Cochba and Shabbtai Tzvi have been rejected.


Christians counter that Jesus will fulfill these


in the Second Coming, but Jewish sources show that the Messiah will fulfill the prophecies outright; in the Bible no concept of a second coming exists. ________________________

Hmm...I wonder then what they'd call this in Revelation 19: 11-16.

'And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew but he himself.

And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.'

You also have to have some understanding of this verse:

'When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.' John 6: 15.

This is because all of these prophecies will be fulfilled during the second coming, a world that knows war no more, a redeemed Israel, and a ruling Christ. The first time Christ came, he had to die, to save man from his sins, the second time he comes, it will be to establish the Kingdom of God.

B. DESCENDENT OF DAVID


According to Jewish sources, the Messiah will be born of human parents and possess normal physical attributes like other people. He will not be a demi-god, (1) nor will he possess supernatural qualities.


The Messiah must be descended on his father's side from King David (see Genesis 49:10, Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:17; Ezekiel 34:23-24). According to the Christian claim that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth, he had no father -- and thus could not have possibly fulfilled the messianic requirement of being descended on his father's side from King David. (2)

[/QUOTE]

Well, what about this here in Genesis 3: 15

'And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.'

That seems to indicate that the Messiah would be reckoned after the seed of a woman, which would have been necessary considering that Jesus was virgin born.

Throughout the New Testament, Jesus contradicts the Torah and states that its commandments are no longer applicable. For example, John 9:14 records that Jesus made a paste in violation of Shabbat, which caused the Pharisees to say (verse 16), "He does not observe Shabbat!"

Jesus here was pointing out the Pharisees hypocrisy, he did this many times, such as the fact that they too worked on the sabbath, and they were ashamed afterwards. Man was not made for the sabbath, but the sabbath was made for man.





A. VIRGIN BIRTH

The Christian idea of a virgin birth is derived from the verse in Isaiah 7:14 describing an "alma" as giving birth. The word "alma" has always meant a young woman, but Christian theologians came centuries later and translated it as "virgin." This accords Jesus' birth with the first century pagan idea of mortals being impregnated by gods.

Well, this is what I found at this link: http://jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/9_1/almah

Quote:
Joel 1:8 presents another example of the word betulah in a context which does not convey the usual meaning of virginity: "Mourn like a virgin (betulah) in sackcloth, grieving for the husband of her youth."

Some commentators say this refers to a betrothed virgin, thus making the lamentation all the more poignant because the marriage had never been consummated. The use of ba'al (husband) in this verse, however, seems to imply the opposite. The word ba'al is never used in the Jewish Scriptures of the betrothed state, but only of a married man.
Therefore, even if the prophet Isaiah had used the word betulah, it could have been argued that he did not intend to say that this woman had never had sexual relations with a man.


A look at the Septuagint translation of almah by Semitics scholar Dr. Cyrus Gordon, provides additional insight on the matter:
The commonly held view that "virgin" is Christian, whereas "young woman" is Jewish is not quite true. The fact is that the Septuagint, which is the Jewish translation made in pre-Christian Alexandria, takes almah to mean "virgin" here. Accordingly, the New Testament follows Jewish interpretation in Isaiah 7:14. Therefore, the New Testament rendering of almah as "virgin" for Isaiah 7:14 rests on the older Jewish interpretation, which in turn is now borne out for precisely this annunciation formula by a text that is not only pre-Isaianic but is pre-Mosaic in the form that we now have it on a clay tablet.6

I will also add that an angel had to come and let Mary know that she was chosen by God and that he had blessed her womb. That doesn't back up the claim that God had sex with Mary like it is portrayed in so many ancient mythologies in the slightest.

And in the New Testament we are taught that God has placed a veil over the eyes of most Jews, until the fullness of the Gentiles, or times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. Though there are still a remnant of which who have come to the knowledge of who Jesus really is, ie Messianic Torah Judaism. The Bible, even in the Old Testament, speaks of a time when the Jewish people will be converted to Christ en masse. Here's a good scripture:

'And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon Me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for Him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for his firstborn.

Zechariah 12: 10

[Imam]

all of these prophecies will be fulfilled during the second coming
.

Not only there is not the slightest hint in the old testament that the promised messiah will come twice but also , even if this true ,then How Jesus(peace be upon him) will ever fulfil such basic messianic prophecy in his supposed second coming?:
The Messiah must be descended on his father's side from King David and Solomon (see Genesis 49:10, Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:17; Ezekiel 34:23-24).

Well, what about this here in Genesis 3: 15

'And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.'

That seems to indicate that the Messiah would be reckoned after the seed of a woman, which would have been necessary considering that Jesus was virgin born..

The term (seed of a woman) never indicate the idea of virgin born.

"seed" can be used allegorically for both the descendants of men and women, depending on the context.
Genesis 16: [8] And he said, Hagar, Sarai's maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai. [9] And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands. [10] And the angel of the LORD said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude.

the descendants of Hagar, Ishmael's mother, were called "seed," as well.

Well, this is what I found at this link: http://jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/9_1/almah..

As a muslim we believe in the virgin birth of Jesus ,I'm not denying that virgin birth of Jesus ,and any virgin birth prophecy regarding Jesus in the Old testament is welcomed for muslims..... but the fact is there is none and that shows how untrustworthy the work of the writer Matthew ,as he intentionaly misused the Old Testament and invented a prophecy......


actually ,After my thorough study of the messianic prophecies ,which took from my time what is beyond anyone’s’ imagination, I advice those who interested in finding out why the passage of Isaiah 7:14 can’t be a messianic prophecy ,to approach the matter not with the (Alma,bethula meanings) …… but examining the context…..


I repent the time that I wasted looking for the linguistic factor in the passage, which I thought in the beginning ,that it is the key for understanding the passage…… but the fact it has nothing to do with problem …. Actually I will show that the meanings of (alma-bethula) is off topic

Before showing my thorough study results in the such passage, I would like to ask you a question which is crucial and necessary in order to continue the discussion…


Isaiah 71 During the reign of Ahaz son of Jotham and grandson of Uzziah, Jerusalem was attacked by King Rezin of Aram and King Pekah of Israel, the son of Remaliah. The city withstood the attack, however, and was not taken.
2 The news had come to the royal court: "Aram is allied with Israel* against us!" So the hearts of the king and his people trembled with fear, just as trees shake in a storm.13 Then the LORD said to Isaiah, "Go out to meet King Ahaz, you and your son Shear-jashub.* You will find the king at the end of the aqueduct that feeds water into the upper pool, near the road leading to the field where cloth is bleached.24 Tell him to stop worrying. Tell him he doesn't need to fear the fierce anger of those two burned-out embers, King Rezin of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah.5 "Yes, the kings of Aram and Israel are coming against you. They are saying,6 `We will invade Judah and throw its people into panic. Then we will fight our way into Jerusalem and install the son of Tabeel as Judah's king.'7 "But this is what the Sovereign LORD says: This invasion will never happen,8 because Aram is no stronger than its capital, Damascus. And Damascus is no stronger than its king, Rezin. As for Israel, within sixty-five years it will be crushed and completely destroyed.
9 Israel is no stronger than its capital, Samaria. And Samaria is no stronger than its king, Pekah son of Remaliah. You do not believe me? If you want me to protect you, learn to believe what I say."10 Not long after this, the LORD sent this message to King Ahaz:11 "Ask me for a sign, Ahaz, to prove that I will crush your enemies as I have promised. Ask for anything you like, and make it as difficult as you want."12 But the king refused. "No," he said, "I wouldn't test the LORD like that."13 Then Isaiah said, "Listen well, you royal family of David! You aren't satisfied to exhaust my patience. You exhaust the patience of God as well!
14 All right then, the Lord himself will choose the sign. Look! The young woman (or the virgin, if you wish it to be translated) will conceive a child! She will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel--`God is with us.'3

15 By the time this child is old enough to eat curds and honey, he will know enough to choose what is right and reject what is wrong.16 But before he knows right from wrong, the two kings you fear so much--the kings of Israel and Aram--will both be dead.

from the context of the passage , what is that underlined word (this child) refers to?
( Emmaneul-Isaiah-Ahaz)

Which one? only one word answer ,plz




peace

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[mkh4JC]

Not only there is not the slightest hint in the old testament that the promised messiah will come twice but also , even if this true ,then How Jesus(peace be upon him) will ever fulfil such basic messianic prophecy in his supposed second coming?:
The Messiah must be descended on his father's side from King David and Solomon (see Genesis 49:10, Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:17; Ezekiel 34:23-24).

Jesus is descended from the line of David, but through his mother. As I have already shown, the Bible in the Old Testament said that the the seed of the woman (not the seed of the man) would crush the head of the serpent (Satan).

The term (seed of a woman) never indicate the idea of virgin born.

"seed" can be used allegorically for both the descendants of men and women, depending on the context.
Genesis 16: [8] And he said, Hagar, Sarai's maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai. [9] And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands. [10] And the angel of the LORD said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude.

the descendants of Hagar, Ishmael's mother, were called "seed," as well.

The passage I quoted was an indication of God's salvation plan. He said the seed of the woman (which turned out to be Mary) would crush the head of the serpent (Satan), while the serpent (Satan) would bruise his (Christ's) heel. All this happened at the cross, Christ won at the cross, and for those who accept him, he grants you victory over sin. The virgin birth isn't mentioned until Isaiah I believe.

As a muslim we believe in the virgin birth of Jesus ,I'm not denying that virgin birth of Jesus ,and any virgin birth prophecy regarding Jesus in the Old testament is welcomed for muslims..... but the fact is there is none and that shows how untrustworthy the work of the writer Matthew ,as he intentionaly misused the Old Testament and invented a prophecy......


actually ,After my thorough study of the messianic prophecies ,which took from my time what is beyond anyone’s’ imagination, I advice those who interested in finding out why the passage of Isaiah 7:14 can’t be a messianic prophecy ,to approach the matter not with the (Alma,bethula meanings) …… but examining the context…..


I repent the time that I wasted looking for the linguistic factor in the passage, which I thought in the beginning ,that it is the key for understanding the passage…… but the fact it has nothing to do with problem …. Actually I will show that the meanings of (alma-bethula) is off topic

Before showing my thorough study results in the such passage, I would like to ask you a question which is crucial and necessary in order to continue the discussion…


Isaiah 71 During the reign of Ahaz son of Jotham and grandson of Uzziah, Jerusalem was attacked by King Rezin of Aram and King Pekah of Israel, the son of Remaliah. The city withstood the attack, however, and was not taken.
2 The news had come to the royal court: "Aram is allied with Israel* against us!" So the hearts of the king and his people trembled with fear, just as trees shake in a storm.13 Then the LORD said to Isaiah, "Go out to meet King Ahaz, you and your son Shear-jashub.* You will find the king at the end of the aqueduct that feeds water into the upper pool, near the road leading to the field where cloth is bleached.24 Tell him to stop worrying. Tell him he doesn't need to fear the fierce anger of those two burned-out embers, King Rezin of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah.5 "Yes, the kings of Aram and Israel are coming against you. They are saying,6 `We will invade Judah and throw its people into panic. Then we will fight our way into Jerusalem and install the son of Tabeel as Judah's king.'7 "But this is what the Sovereign LORD says: This invasion will never happen,8 because Aram is no stronger than its capital, Damascus. And Damascus is no stronger than its king, Rezin. As for Israel, within sixty-five years it will be crushed and completely destroyed.
9 Israel is no stronger than its capital, Samaria. And Samaria is no stronger than its king, Pekah son of Remaliah. You do not believe me? If you want me to protect you, learn to believe what I say."10 Not long after this, the LORD sent this message to King Ahaz:11 "Ask me for a sign, Ahaz, to prove that I will crush your enemies as I have promised. Ask for anything you like, and make it as difficult as you want."12 But the king refused. "No," he said, "I wouldn't test the LORD like that."13 Then Isaiah said, "Listen well, you royal family of David! You aren't satisfied to exhaust my patience. You exhaust the patience of God as well!
14 All right then, the Lord himself will choose the sign. Look! The young woman (or the virgin, if you wish it to be translated) will conceive a child! She will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel--`God is with us.'3

15 By the time this child is old enough to eat curds and honey, he will know enough to choose what is right and reject what is wrong.16 But before he knows right from wrong, the two kings you fear so much--the kings of Israel and Aram--will both be dead.

from the context of the passage , what is that underlined word (this child) refers to?
( Emmaneul-Isaiah-Ahaz)

Which one? only one word answer ,plz
peace

Well, from my understanding, it refers to Jesus. I'm still a baby in Christ, so I don't know everything, but just because Christ wasn't born during their lifetime that doesn't mean that it didn't refer to him. What I'm about to put forth to you I knew about in some degree, but I've heard it explained to me this way recently. When Christ died, he went into the heart of the Earth, or the center of the Earth, where hell is at this point and time (and where paradise used to be).

And for three days he preached about himself, explained the scriptures that pointed to him, to all of the Old Testament saints, bringing with him the thief on the cross (because with two or three witnesses every word has to be established), and letting them know that he was the Christ, the Messiah that should come into the world. So he told them that he was born from a virgin (because sin nature is passed through the male) and lived a sinless life, that he was the Son of God (and there are scriptures in the Old Testament that point to him being so), and that he took upon the world's sins, past, present, and future, that he himself is the cure for sin nature.

So it is my belief that that prophecy still relates to Christ.

But now I want to ask you a question. What do you think of Isaiah 53?



'Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?

For he shall grow up before him as a tender planet, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth:
He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was there any deceit in his mouth.

Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering to sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.

He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.' Isaiah 53: 1-12.

[Chuck]

The problem is there are no jews in this topic

[جوري]

Not only there is not the slightest hint in the old testament that the promised messiah will come twice but also , even if this true ,then How Jesus(peace be upon him) will ever fulfil such basic messianic prophecy in his supposed second coming?:
The Messiah must be descended on his father's side from King David and Solomon (see Genesis 49:10, Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:17; Ezekiel 34:23-24).










The term (seed of a woman) never indicate the idea of virgin born.

"seed" can be used allegorically for both the descendants of men and women, depending on the context.
Genesis 16: [8] And he said, Hagar, Sarai's maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai. [9] And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands. [10] And the angel of the LORD said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude.

the descendants of Hagar, Ishmael's mother, were called "seed," as well.








As a muslim we believe in the virgin birth of Jesus ,I'm not denying that virgin birth of Jesus ,and any virgin birth prophecy regarding Jesus in the Old testament is welcomed for muslims..... but the fact is there is none and that shows how untrustworthy the work of the writer Matthew ,as he intentionaly misused the Old Testament and invented a prophecy......


actually ,After my thorough study of the messianic prophecies ,which took from my time what is beyond anyone’s’ imagination, I advice those who interested in finding out why the passage of Isaiah 7:14 can’t be a messianic prophecy ,to approach the matter not with the (Alma,bethula meanings) …… but examining the context…..


I repent the time that I wasted looking for the linguistic factor in the passage, which I thought in the beginning ,that it is the key for understanding the passage…… but the fact it has nothing to do with problem …. Actually I will show that the meanings of (alma-bethula) is off topic

Before showing my thorough study results in the such passage, I would like to ask you a question which is crucial and necessary in order to continue the discussion…


Isaiah 71 During the reign of Ahaz son of Jotham and grandson of Uzziah, Jerusalem was attacked by King Rezin of Aram and King Pekah of Israel, the son of Remaliah. The city withstood the attack, however, and was not taken.
2 The news had come to the royal court: "Aram is allied with Israel* against us!" So the hearts of the king and his people trembled with fear, just as trees shake in a storm.13 Then the LORD said to Isaiah, "Go out to meet King Ahaz, you and your son Shear-jashub.* You will find the king at the end of the aqueduct that feeds water into the upper pool, near the road leading to the field where cloth is bleached.24 Tell him to stop worrying. Tell him he doesn't need to fear the fierce anger of those two burned-out embers, King Rezin of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah.5 "Yes, the kings of Aram and Israel are coming against you. They are saying,6 `We will invade Judah and throw its people into panic. Then we will fight our way into Jerusalem and install the son of Tabeel as Judah's king.'7 "But this is what the Sovereign LORD says: This invasion will never happen,8 because Aram is no stronger than its capital, Damascus. And Damascus is no stronger than its king, Rezin. As for Israel, within sixty-five years it will be crushed and completely destroyed.
9 Israel is no stronger than its capital, Samaria. And Samaria is no stronger than its king, Pekah son of Remaliah. You do not believe me? If you want me to protect you, learn to believe what I say."10 Not long after this, the LORD sent this message to King Ahaz:11 "Ask me for a sign, Ahaz, to prove that I will crush your enemies as I have promised. Ask for anything you like, and make it as difficult as you want."12 But the king refused. "No," he said, "I wouldn't test the LORD like that."13 Then Isaiah said, "Listen well, you royal family of David! You aren't satisfied to exhaust my patience. You exhaust the patience of God as well!
14 All right then, the Lord himself will choose the sign. Look! The young woman (or the virgin, if you wish it to be translated) will conceive a child! She will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel--`God is with us.'3

15 By the time this child is old enough to eat curds and honey, he will know enough to choose what is right and reject what is wrong.16 But before he knows right from wrong, the two kings you fear so much--the kings of Israel and Aram--will both be dead.

from the context of the passage , what is that underlined word (this child) refers to?
( Emmaneul-Isaiah-Ahaz)

Which one? only one word answer ,plz




peace

mash'Allah akhi may Allah swt yizeddak 3ilm and enable you to teach & give da3wa with what you've learned insh'Allah--

very informative :)

:w:

[suffiyan007]

i had read the descendent of jesus, Zakaria...yahya...even zechariah teach the jews to worship one true God, the people kill the follower of prophet Zechariah,cause Zechariah teach evil lesson...what's this ...more over people that time of Jesus century more over trying to distorted Jesus book "Bible" verse by verse...until now many version of bible real ashamed...of jews and christian.to believe in God, there one waY is to follow the the way of REal prophets to preach God's deen...is Tauheed, one true God...and people take the theology of Torah,psalm and etc.. they follow and they change it bit by bit...in Quran no one can change one word...that's why i hope non-believer to enter islam.you've been bless by Allah..jazakallah kyairan!

[Grace Seeker]

Not only there is not the slightest hint in the old testament that the promised messiah will come twice but also , even if this true ,then How Jesus(peace be upon him) will ever fulfil such basic messianic prophecy in his supposed second coming?:
The Messiah must be descended on his father's side from King David and Solomon (see Genesis 49:10, Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:17; Ezekiel 34:23-24).

Maybe I've been misinformed, but I thought that Muslims believed that Jesus was the Messiah and that he will return to earth in the last days. Am I wrong?

[Grace Seeker]

15 By the time this child is old enough to eat curds and honey, he will know enough to choose what is right and reject what is wrong.16 But before he knows right from wrong, the two kings you fear so much--the kings of Israel and Aram--will both be dead.

from the context of the passage , what is that underlined word (this child) refers to?
( Emmaneul-Isaiah-Ahaz)

Which one? only one word answer ,plz




peace

You left out none of the above, which is another legitimate possibility in this particular passage.

But worse, in seeking only a single answer, you miss the reality that sometimes verses of scripture actually speak at multiple levels. Your search for seeing the meaning of this passage is like a horse going down the road with blinders on; you can see fine just in front of you, but you don't have the full picture.

[Imam]

Again with the problem of Isaiah 7

Note: again and again we muslims believe in the virgin birth of Jesus , but we don't have any Quranic clue that such virgin birth is prophecied , Now we have a writer is thought by christians to be (inspired ) claims that there is such prophecy,

Matthew 1:22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, [23] Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, G-d with us. (KJV)


so we have to analyze his claims, if there is not such prophecy the consequences would be damaging to the claims that the New Testament as being inspired and the true word of God......as we have a writer said to be inspired is caught intentionaly cheating his readers ....

in other words is there is no virgin birth prophecy , there is no inspired Matthew,there is no inspired New Testament ,hence there is no valid Christianity......


Does the (alma-bethula meanings) deserve all such big controversy one can read online?

Lots of Jewish online articles argue that The prophet could have chosen a different word had he wanted to describe Immanuel's mother as a virgin. Betulah is a more common way to refer to a woman who has never been with a man (both in biblical and modern Hebrew).


On the other hand The Christian bible commentaries ,articles argue that almah is never used in the Scriptures to describe a "young, presently married woman." Also in the Bible, a young Jewish woman of marriageable age was presumed to be virgin. Etc……



Both arguments are inappropriate to approach the problem in the passage…

A question for both the two arguments, what if the word used in the passage (alma) means exclusively in any context, any time, any place (a virgin )? Would that fits the passage into a prophecy of a virgin birth?

Absolutely ,not

The following imaginary dialogue(which based on the chapter) between Isaiah and a member of the house of David in the horrible crisis, will highlight the core of the problem:

Isaiah: Oh ,house of David don’t worry ,don’t be scared God is with your side in such crisis, and will show you a sign to ease your minds ,the virgin will be pregnant..

A listener to Isaiah from the house of David : and?

Isaiah: I repeat again, The virgin will be pregnant.

Listener : and afterwards?

Isaiah: Isn’t that enough to show how God is with your side?

Listener : Is that what you call a miracle!!!!!!? Virgin will be pregnant !!!

Isaiah: yes why not…

Listener : lol How many men performed such miracle all over history, what is the big deal about a virgin will be pregnant !!!! aren’t most virgins sometime in the future get pregnant??

Hey house of David (the listener shouted) how many men of you can perform such miracle, and impregnate a virgin?
One of them said ,just let me with the virgin in private for a week to perform such miracle, another said just a day and another funny one affirmed, he just needs 5 minutes to impregnate her with twins !…….


Isaiah: I forgot to say that She will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel

Listener : nice name , my nephew has the same name ,would you please ease our minds and tell us about the sign ?….

Isaiah: in a word, before this boy knows right from wrong, the two kings you fear so much--the kings of Israel and Aram--will both be dead.



Listener : Thanx now your words make sense…..

In other words, if the word used in the passage (alma) means exclusively in any context, any time, any place (a virgin ) ,that Would never fit the passage into a prophecy of a virgin birth…..

If the text tells (the Virgin will be pregnant without a man) and we have another context ,then there we can argue the possibility of a virgin birth prophecy, but that is not the case ………….

That is why I said the linguistic factor is of no value when approaching the problem…. Translate the word as you wish (virgin, young woman ….) and the problem still remains…..

Have I finished with Isaiah 7? not yet but depends on those who would like to discuss and argue with me.....

You left out none of the above, which is another legitimate possibility in this particular passage.

.

And

Well, from my understanding, it refers to Jesus.

Ok let’s see how your possibility could be legitimate in this particular passage.
Let’s put directly the name you think to be legitimate to such passage:


14 All right then, the Lord himself will choose the sign. Look! The young woman (or the virgin, if you wish it to be translated) will conceive a child! She will give birth to a son and will call him Jesus15 By the time Jesus is old enough to eat curds and honey, he will know enough to choose what is right and reject what is wrong.16 But before Jesus knows right from wrong, the two kings you fear so much--the kings of Israel and Aram--will both be dead.

Now the matter in your hand,… you can give the legitimacy to Jesus in such passage by explaining verse 16 and how it was fulfilled during the time of Jesus (peace be upon him)

When ever the kings of Israel and Aram been killed during the time of Jesus?

Your search for seeing the meaning of this passage is like a horse going down the road with blinders on.

The horse should go on his straight path , staying away from THE ZIGZAG WAY ,in order not to get lost .....

Maybe I've been misinformed, but I thought that Muslims believed that Jesus was the Messiah . Am I wrong? .

The Jewish conception of the messiah is not in accordance with what the Quran teaches ,the same can be said about the Christian concept….

Jesus is according to the Quran is the messiah ( term is used in to describe ANY Israelite priests, prophets, and kings who were anointed with oil in consecration to their respective offices) son of mary who came to remind the Jews of the necessity of monotheism and to make lawful to them part of what was (Before) forbidden to them
…
Holy Quran 3:50 "'(I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (Before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah, and obey me.

there is nothing in the Quran about a person (from the seed of David and Solomon, whom is his arrival There will be no more hunger or illness, and death will cease, rebuild the Jewish temple ......

There is nothing in the quran about a king who came or will come to fulfil such old testament messianic prophecies…….

much more to mention in the right time..............................

now I want to ask you a question. What do you think of Isaiah 53?
.

the passage in Isaiah 53 has another approach to be understood ....If no one will comment on my input in isaiah 7 ,I will discuss 53 inshaAllah..

may Allah swt yizeddak 3ilm and enable you to teach & give da3wa

.

جزاكى الله كل خير على مجهودك ووقتك ،وبارك الله فيكى وفى والدك الكريم

[mkh4JC]

[B]



Both arguments are inappropriate to approach the problem in the passage…

A question for both the two arguments, what if the word used in the passage (alma) means exclusively in any context, any time, any place (a virgin )? Would that fits the passage into a prophecy of a virgin birth?

Absolutely ,not

Well, this is what I found:

This passage foretells that the *'almah* will be with child, a condition that seems to deny the possibility of virginity. However, this passage is a prophecy that classifies the pregnant condition of the *'almah* as an *'oth* (sign or miracle). According to the Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon the word *'oth* can have one of several meanings:
(1) a sign, pledge, or token
(2) a sign or omen
(3) a sign or symbol
(4) a sign or miracle given as a pledge or attestation of divine presence and interposition
(5) a sign or memorial
(6) a sign or pledge of a covenant
(7) an ensign [flag] or standard
(8) a sign of changing weather

In this passage the 4th meaning fits the context; the sign was a miracle given as God's pledge of future deliverance of Israel. That the sign truly was to be a miracle is evident from verse 11--''Ask a sign for yourself from the LORD your God; ask it either in the depth or in the height above." Clearly Isaiah offered King Ahaz a miraculous sign of the magnitude of the miraculous sign actually given to King Hezekiah at a later time (38:8). That Ahaz understood the offered sign to be a miracle is evident from his response in verse 12--"But Ahaz said, 'I will not ask, nor will I test the LORD!'" The request of a purely natural event would not have been regarded as a test of God.

Now if the *'almah* conceived by natural means, then no miracle occurred. Young women conceive regularly by natural means. There is nothing miraculous about that. The only way the conception could be a miraculous sign would be for it to be supernatural. Thus, it is appropriate to conclude that the word *'almah* means "virgin" here also. I know that Dr. Bob denies that the sign is the *'almah*s conception; I respond to this later.

Ok let’s see how your possibility could be legitimate in this particular passage.
Let’s put directly the name you think to be legitimate to such passage:


14 All right then, the Lord himself will choose the sign. Look! The young woman (or the virgin, if you wish it to be translated) will conceive a child! She will give birth to a son and will call him Jesus15 By the time Jesus is old enough to eat curds and honey, he will know enough to choose what is right and reject what is wrong.16 But before Jesus knows right from wrong, the two kings you fear so much--the kings of Israel and Aram--will both be dead.

Now the matter in your hand,… you can give the legitimacy to Jesus in such passage by explaining verse 16 and how it was fulfilled during the time of Jesus (peace be upon him)

When ever the kings of Israel and Aram been killed during the time of Jesus?

Well again, this is what I found:

The sign was not given to Ahaz. The Lord instructed Ahaz to ask for any kind of sign (7:11). In unbelief, Ahaz refused to specify a sign for the Lord to give, so the Lord turned from Ahaz to the "house of David" (the elders of Israel) and said: "Hear ye (plural) now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you (plural) to weary men, but will ye (plural) weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself shall give you (plural) a sign" (7:13-14). Clearly the prophecy was not given to Ahaz (a single person), but to Israel (a group of people). As Dr. Bob said in another place: "A group of people can be viewed as a single entity but a single entity cannot be viewed as a group." Therefore, by Dr. Bob's own reasoning the prophecy cannot have been given to Ahaz. Likewise, since the prophecy was not given to Ahaz but to Israel, it can now be understood to have shifted from short range to long range; it ceased to be assurance of short term deliverance, and shifted to long range assurance of Messianic hope. When a prophetic sign is given to a nation, its fulfillment is not bound to the life span of any individual of the nation. In fact, the sign often is long range. Since Ahaz had rejected God's help, the only thing left for his people Israel was the impending defeat and destruction which was the cause of their fear and dread, but with a promise of survival and hope for the distant future.

Also the purpose of the sign had shifted. The original sign was offered to Ahaz to provide assurance of God's deliverance from the impending threat from Syria and the northern tribes of Israel (7:4-9a). Of the impending threat from Syria and Northern Israel the promised assurance was: "It shall not stand, nor shall it come to pass" (vs. 7). However, this sign was offered on the condition of faith and obedience: "If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established" (7:9). Ahaz refused to believe and to specify a sign (7:12). Consequently, the available deliverance was not given. Instead, the Lord permitted Syria and Northern Israel to attack them, kill 120,000 troops, and take captive 200,000 civilians (2 Chron 28:5-21). The appeal of Ahaz for help from Assyria brought some temporary relief, but the Lord used that "hired razor" to bring further judgment at a later time (Isa 7:17-25; 2 Chron 28:16-21).

the passage in Isaiah 53 has another approach to be understood ....If no one will comment on my input in isaiah 7 ,I will discuss 53 inshaAllah..

Alright, until your next post then.

[Grace Seeker]

Jesus is according to the Quran is the messiah ( term is used in to describe ANY Israelite priests, prophets, and kings who were anointed with oil in consecration to their respective offices) son of mary who came to remind the Jews of the necessity of monotheism and to make lawful to them part of what was (Before) forbidden to them.

So, would it be more correct to say that Islam sees Jesus as A messiah, but not as THE Messiah?

[doorster]

Harun Yayah wrote:
Abu Hanifah, Imam of our mazhab, stated that subjects such as the coming of the Prophet ‘Isa (as) and the Mahdi are matters that should not be denied:

"The emergence of the Dajjal (the Anti-christ) and Yajuj (Gog), the Sun rising in the West, the descent from the sky of the Prophet ‘Isa (as) and the other portents of the Last Hour related in sahih (trustworthy) reports are all true and will definitely take place. There are other great portents of the Hour, such as the coming of the Mahdi. As trustworthy accounts say, all these phenomena are true and will take place.” (Al-Fiqh al-Akbar, al-Imam al-A’zam Abu Hanifah, p. 99)

hello

I have to apologise to you for the last message I sent to you which was due to me misunderstanding him and getting confused for I thought that he was saying that Jesus of Christian old testament was not the same as the Messiah of the Jewish Bible.

I went back to read more of his posts and discovered that I have had a run in with him previously regarding "The Messiah".

So, would be more correct to say that Islam sees Jesus as A messiah, but not as THE Messiah?

now, I understand you and him. and I have come to the same conclusion as your original one i.e his version of Islam sees Jesus as A messiah, but not as THE Messiah.

on the other hand my version of Islam has a different concept in which, there will be al masih al dajjal aka anti-Christ, who will be defeated by The Messiah, who will then go on to unite Jews, Christians and Muslims, then form a righteous khilafat/kingdom of The God [Allah] on earth for a period of 7 years, some of which is described in >> The Second Coming of Jesus (Hazrat Isa Alahisalam)

We Muslims believe in the second coming of Prophet Isa (Jesus). When he descends to earth, the world will change drastically. Muslims and Christians will unite as one ummat (nation) and wealth will be in abundance.

Abu Hurayrah narrated: Allah’s Messenger said, “The Hour will not be established until the son of Mary [Jesus] descends among you as a just ruler. He will break the cross, kill the pigs, and abolish the jizyah tax. Money will be in abundance so that nobody will accept it (as charitable gifts)” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 43, Number 656).

Breaking the cross refers to refuting the invented story of Jesus’s crucifixion and resurrection. Killing the pig means prohibiting its meat again, as in Islam and in the original Law of Moses. Jizyah is a tax paid by non-Muslims instead of the zakah (obligatory charity) paid by Muslims, in return for the equal rights, protection, and services they enjoy in a Muslim state. This ruling will be abolished, as all Christians will follow Jesus in his second coming and become Muslims.

However, his coming will be preceded by the appearance of the Antichrist (the Dajjal, the Imposter), who will come to intrigue people away from the truth of Islam, by showing what appears to be miraculous actions—by the will of Allah— that deceive only the naïve and unbelievers.

`Abdullah ibn `Amr reported that Allah’s Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “The Dajjal would appear in my ummah and he would stay [in the world] for 40—I cannot say whether he meant 40 days, 40 months, or 40 years. And Allah would then send Jesus son of Mary, who would resemble `Urwa ibn Mas`ud. He (Jesus Christ) would chase him and kill him. Then people would live for seven years that there would be no rancor between two persons” (Muslim.)

It is narrated on the authority of `Abdullah ibn `Umar that one day the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) mentioned Al-Masih Ad-Dajjal (the Dajjal) in the presence of people. He said, “Verily, Allah (hallowed be He and High) is not blind of one eye. Behold, but Al-Masih Ad-Dajjal is blind of the right eye as if his eye is like a swollen grape.” Also the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “I was shown in a dream in the night that near the Ka`bah there was a man fair-complexioned, fine among the white-complexioned men that you ever saw, his locks of hair were falling on his shoulders. He was a man whose hair were neither too curly nor too straight, and water trickled down from his head. He was placing his hands on the shoulders of two persons and amidst them was making a circuit around the Ka`bah. I said, ‘Who is he?’ They replied, ‘Al-Masih son of Mary’” (Muslim).

Apart from that, no other details are given as to how Jesus would look like, what language he would speak, nor any other marking features. His face will not be as that portrayed and consecrated by the Christians and their churches. This has been visualized, from imagination, several centuries after his departure.

However, true believers will first know the Antichrist by his deeds as narrated by the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). Similarly, Jesus will not be mistaken for anybody else, as he will declare himself as a prophet of Islam, coming to correct his message and to unite all the believers under the banner of Islam.

In Islam, the second coming of Christ is not only one of the peculiar signs of the Hereafter, but is a glorious conclusion of the history-long confrontation between tawheed (monotheism) of all genuine prophets on the one hand, and the multitude of polytheist deviations that infiltrated the teachings of Jesus after his departure, until it gradually engulfed almost all Christian creeds. These led to deifying Jesus, making him the son of God, and one part of a triune god, the same as in many other deviated or invented religions.

That this confrontation will be a major aspect of human history is stressed and amazingly expressed in the Qur’an. The Qur’an repeatedly exposes Christian distortions and warns those who advocate these invented deviations. Such a major history-long set of deviations that spread among considerable and influential segments of the world population, will naturally end toward the end of time with a decisive proclamation of truth. This proclamation will justly come through the same prophet who was misunderstood most, whose message was most sinfully tampered with, and whose personality was disfigured in such a way as to deceive generations of people and to corrupt the pure monotheistic belief he carried.

The second coming of Christ does not contradict with the fact that the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) is the Seal of the Prophets, by whom the messages and guidance of Allah to humanity have been completed. The return of Jesus is not a new phase of divine messages of Allah, but a final reaffirmation and revival of the message of Islam, the eternal call of all prophets and messengers.

Hope this answer is satisfactory. Thank you and please keep in touch.

Salam.

Useful Links: The Story of Jesus
Is Jesus Dead or Alive?
Armageddon and the End Times

So Please when you say "So, would be more correct to say that Islam sees Jesus as A messiah, but not as THE Messiah?" You should take note that what any member here says is not representative of all Muslim opinion. I believe that I am a Muslim and in my version of Islam there is a concept of The Messiah.

wa salam (Peace)

THE DESCENT OF PROPHET ‘ISA (As) AND THE COMING OF THE MAHDI ARE SUBJECTS “THAT CANNOT BE DENIED” IN THE FAITH OF THE PEOPLE OF THE SUNNAH

[doorster]

SOME TRUSTWORTHY HADITH REGARDING THE COMING OF THE PROPHET ‘ISA (AS) AND THE BLESSED MAHDI compiled by Harun Yayah

1. ... I swear by Allah that the son of Maryam will certainly descend as a just judge… (Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0289)
2. The Hour will not be established until the son of Mary (i.e. Jesus) descends amongst you as a just ruler… (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 43, Number 656)
3. I swear by Him in Whose hand is my soul: the son of Mary shall descend among you as a just ruler. ... (Narrated by Abu Huraira, Sahih Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi)
4. There is no prophet between me and him, that is, Jesus (pbuh). He will descend (to the earth). (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 37, Number 4310; Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim and Tirmidhi)
5. ... Jesus son of Mary would then descend and their (Muslims') commander would invite him to come and lead them in prayer, but he would say: No, some amongst you are commanders over some (amongst you). This is the honour from Allah for this Ummah. (Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0293)
6. How can a community be eliminated, when there is first me [the Prophet Muhammad (saas)], Isa’ (as) son of Maryam at the end, and the Mahdi, one of my line, between us? (Jalaladdin as-Suyuti, Al-Burhan fi Alamat al-Mahdi Akhir al-Zaman, Al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, p. 78)
7. The Mahdi is one of this community and will serve as imam to the Prophet ‘Isa (as). (Jalaladdin as-Suyuti, Al-Burhan fi Alamat al-Mahdi Akhir al-Zaman, Al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, p. 79)
8. Narrated Umm Salamah, Ummul Mu'minin: The Prophet (saas) said: The Mahdi will be of my family, of the descendants of Fatimah. … (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 36, Number 4271)
9. Narrated Ali ibn AbuTalib:The Prophet (saas) said: If only one day of this time (world) remained, Allah would raise up a man from my family who would fill this earth with justice as it has been filled with oppression. (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 36, Number 4270)
10. Hear the glad tidings of the Mahdi. He will be one of the Quraish and one of my line. (Al-Burhan fi Alamat al-Mahdi Akhir al-Zaman, p. 13)
11. The peoples of the Earth and sky, and even the birds in the air, will be delighted at his (the Mahdi’s) caliphate. (Al-Qawl al-Mukhtasar fi Alamat al-Mahdi al- Muntadhar, p. 29)
12. ... The Mahdi will appear with the flag of the Messenger of Allah (saas), when people have lost hope that they will be freed from the woes afflicting them.... (Al-Burhan fi Alamat al-Mahdi Akhir al-Zaman, p. 55)

[Grace Seeker]

So Please when you say "So, would it be more correct to say that Islam sees Jesus as A messiah, but not as THE Messiah?" You should take note that what any member here says is not representative of all Muslim opinion. I believe that I am a Muslim and in my version of Islam there is a concept of The Messiah.

wa salam (Peace)

Point well taken.

[Imam]

:sl:

Before continueing with Isaiah 7....

Note for the Muslims who visit the thread and might misunderstand me:


Dear doorster
I'm afraid that you misunderstood me and still misunderstanding me,now my duty to eliminate such misunderstanding between us

I thought that he was saying that Jesus of Christian old testament was not the same as the Messiah of the Jewish Bible.

yes I said so ,don't you think so?

his version of Islam sees Jesus as A messiah, but not as THE Messiah.on the other hand my version of Islam has a different concept
.

all That i said that the concept of the Messiah in the old testament is not in accordance with what the Quran teaches..........
Do you think otherwise( the concept of the Messiah in the old testament and the Quran are the same ) ? and why?


Do you think our versions(me and yours) disagree? if so,what material I ever wrote makes you think so?!!
you shifted the issue to the signs of the hours in islam,jesus second coming according to islam,al mahdi etc......
all such issues are offtopic .... as I never mentioned a word about them.......
I didn't give opinions which disagree with yours regarding the signs of the hours in islam, jesus second coming according to islam,al mahdi anti-Christ
etc....
my opinion in such issue are kept for other threads dealing specifically with such issues.....
I wish now the misunderstanding between us to be over.....
I hope now it is time to continue our specific topic , examining the validity of the basic source of christianity (the New Testament) through what its writers claim to be messianic prophecies....




Now again to our topic,

The writer whom quoted Fedos,used two arguments ( to prove the sign to be miracelous & the sign have shifted from short range to long range)

both of his arguments are flawed


He argues :

Now if the *'almah* conceived by natural means, then no miracle occurred..

Exactly ! and that is what I did in the imaginary dialogue put on the mouth of isaiah in my last post.....I put in his mouth the christian argument (the sign is miracelous)

Now let's read the context to see whether the sign truly was to be a miracle or not:

Well,What does the text tell us about the purpose of Isaiah's visit?

The purpose of the visit will give us the first hint of the nature of the sign

7:1 Rezin, the king of Aram, and Pekah, the king of Israel, came up to Jerusalem to make war against it,so Ahaz's heart, and the hearts of his people, were moved, like the trees of the wood shaking in the wind.


The previous introduction to the chapter shows us the hard situation for both Ahaz and the house of David , they were terrified,which requires not, a miracle show to be performed such as turning the sticks into serpents or to make a donkey talk or to make a virgin pregnant without a man ......,
such group of people ,been scared of the impending war,logically would be expecting anything but such useless miracles show in such situation......


let's continue with the text

Isa 7:4 And say to him, Take care and be quiet; have no fear, and do not let your heart be feeble

remember, not only Ahaz has fear but all the house of david as well and that neccesarily reqiures something to be said or to be done to ease their minds (Ahaz and his people)


11 "Ask me for a sign, Ahaz,

the writer of the second quotation by fedos affirmed

The Lord instructed Ahaz to ask for any kind of sign (7:11). ..

He could ask for any kind of sign that would bolster his faith in God's protection, for both himself and his people.
Have we any clue what kind of sign it will be ?
the choices are open and no clue yet.....


12 But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt God

The writer argue:

In unbelief, Ahaz refused to specify a sign for the Lord to give, so the Lord turned from Ahaz to the "house of David" ..

What seems unbelief for you, is for other commentators:

-Ahaz sounds almost spiritual in his response. He quotes from Deuteronomy 6:16, which says, “You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.”

-sounds very spiritual from Ahaz. He almost seems to say what Jesus said in Matthew 4:7: “You shall not tempt the Lord your God.”

-a pious reason,
-I will not - By asking a sign, as if I questioned the truth of his word,

-his refusal sounds wise

-he did not want to bother God and take God's time.
-too proud
Hard to know what the people have in mind while uttering sometghing ...... he may be been a hypocrite the moment he uttered so,and may not.....who knows


Now How one could Test God?

If one Not to believe in God without a sign,one usually seek a miracle show..
If one believes in God , and have hardships (illness,crisis,war etc....) one usually seek relief by a sign that not neccessary a miracle show ,it could be a purely natural event
what possible comfort and assurance would Ahaz and his people , who were surrounded by to overwhelming military enemies, have found in the birth of a child seven centuries later?
It is not the birth of the child which is emphasized by the prophet, but the happy issue for which the king is waiting, and of which he may now, relying upon the comparison given him, confidently-estimate the approaching date. Jesus” CH. Guignebert, University Books, New York, 1956, p. 123


Well, have we any clue from the context what will be the kind of sign?
yes we had a hint but not yet to be sure and anyone think otherwise then he is playing the guessing game....

It is not possible to know the reality of something before getting it......
the best way to find out what kind of sign it is ,when we let the sign talks about itself...

13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign

Has Isaiah's mission of relief finished by the pious(or whatever you like to call it) refusal by Ahaz? not yet

God offers one anyway.

Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel. Curds and honey He shall eat, that He may know to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the Child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings.”

Before a child who will be delieverd by a woman who is (or wil be) pregnant,reaching his maturity, the kings terrorizing the people of Ahaz would get ruined.

Is that a miracelous sign ? absolutely not ..

but let's go further ,giving a hand to christian argument and rewriting the text in order to make it seems miracelous:

Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin Mary shall conceive and bear a Son without a man , and shall call His name Jesus. Curds and honey Jesus shall eat, that Jesus may know to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before Jesus shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings.”

Which were the two kingdoms during Jesus' lifetime that were abandoned?

so you see, Even if the miracelous element is available in the passage ,the context will damage the argument.....



the writer argues:

the sign was not given to Ahaz but to the House of David
..

clearly it was for both Ahaz and the House of David ,when Isaiah offered him to choose a sign ,it doesn't mean such sign is to support Ahaz alone but the house of David as well........
the same can be said about the the sign which Isaiah reported the house of David ,it was not for the house of David with the exception of Ahaz.......
the sign for all those under attack,all those been terrified (Ahaz and his people)
7:2 his heart was moved, and the heart of his people, as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind.
the given sign aimed to calm the king Ahaz and his people by their fearing of their enemies


the writer continues:

since the prophecy was not given to Ahaz but to Israel, it can now be understood to have shifted from short range to long range..

That is a wishful thinking......

well, for the sake of the argument ,let's put Ahaz now on the shelf and deal with his house (those whom he claim that the sign was offered to without Ahaz)

Then he said, “Hear now, O house of David! Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will you weary my God also? Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel. Curds and honey He shall eat, that He may know to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the Child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings.”

Isaiah has put a time limit to his prediction about the end of the war ...as After God said to Ahaz to ask for a sign showing that He was with him and his people and after the king’s refusing to provoke God, then God Himself took the initiative and promised to Ahaz the birth of Emmanuel. Before this child’s reaching his maturity, the kings terrorizing the people of Ahaz would get ruined. And the kings fearing Ahaz were routed many centuries before the birth of Jesus. The information that this child would be fed with cream and honey until learning to reject the evil and prefer the good, is another element identifying this child with the situation that Judah was actually undergoing; cream and honey instead of the common food of an agricultural population formed the subsistence of the people whose land was waste. Such human forms put the child in the period when this prophecy was fulfilled. “Applied to the Messiah, it is superfluous and unsuitable.”
Samuel Davidson, An Introduction to the Old Testament, Vol. III, 1863, p. 78



he wrote:

Since Ahaz had rejected God's help, the only thing left for his people Israel was the impending defeat and destruction ..

There we go again,
Haven't we just read how God offered the sign of help to the house of David anyway,even after Ahaz's refusal?!!!

Even though the king refused to ask for a sign, the Sovereign Lord
would give Ahaz and the house of David a sign that He was with His people

Ahaz refused to specify a sign (7:12). Consequently, the Lord permitted Syria and Northern Israel to attack them, kill 120,000 troops, and take captive 200,000 civilians (2 Chron 28:5-21). ..

in other words the according to (2 Chron 28:5-21). the prophecy failed,for me no wonder to see unfulfilled old testament prophecy... but anyway what was unfulfilled for the writer was fulfilled for other commentators:





New American Standard Bible

"before this child be three or four years older, the land that thou abhorrest, these confederate forces of Israelites and Syrians, which thou hast such an enmity to and standest in such dread of, shall be forsaken of both their kings, both Pekah and Rezin," who were in so close an alliance that they seemed as if they were the kings of but one kingdom. This was fully accomplished; for within two or three years after this, Hoshea conspired against Pekah, and slew him (2 Ki. 15:30), and, before that, the king of Assyria took Damascus, and slew Rezin, 2 Ki. 16:9.

Another commentary:
We see, in II Kings 15-16, that this prophecy was fulfilled when these two kings were suddenly assassinated.



Another commentary:

God shatters his expectations. Indeed, Isaiah tells him, by the time the young woman who is
already pregnant gives birth to a child named Immanuel and the child can tell good from evil, the two
kings whom Ahaz fears will have been defeated and have lost their land. They will have been defeated
by Assyria.....



Why the commentaries disagree regarding the fulfilment?



Compare

2 Kings 16
1In the seventeenth year of Pekah the son of Remaliah Ahaz the son of Jotham king of Judah began to reign.
2Twenty years old was Ahaz when he began to reign, and reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem, and did not that which was right in the sight of the LORD his God, like David his father.
3But he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, yea, and made his son to pass through the fire, according to the abominations of the heathen, whom the LORD cast out from before the children of Israel.
4And he sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places, and on the hills, and under every green tree.
5Then Rezin king of Syria and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel came up to Jerusalem to war: and they besieged Ahaz, but could not overcome him.
6At that time Rezin king of Syria recovered Elath to Syria, and drave the Jews from Elath: and the Syrians came to Elath, and dwelt there unto this day.
7So Ahaz sent messengers to Tiglathpileser king of Assyria, saying, I am thy servant and thy son: come up, and save me out of the hand of the king of Syria, and out of the hand of the king of Israel, which rise up against me.
8And Ahaz took the silver and gold that was found in the house of the LORD, and in the treasures of the king's house, and sent it for a present to the king of Assyria.
9And the king of Assyria hearkened unto him: for the king of Assyria went up against Damascus, and took it, and carried the people of it captive to Kir, and slew Rezin.
10And king Ahaz went to Damascus to meet Tiglathpileser king of Assyria, and saw an altar that was at Damascus: and king Ahaz sent to Urijah the priest the fashion of the altar, and the pattern of it, according to all the workmanship thereof.
11And Urijah the priest built an altar according to all that king Ahaz had sent from Damascus: so Urijah the priest made it against king Ahaz came from Damascus.
12And when the king was come from Damascus, the king saw the altar: and the king approached to the altar, and offered thereon.
13And he burnt his burnt offering and his meat offering, and poured his drink offering, and sprinkled the blood of his peace offerings, upon the altar.
14And he brought also the brasen altar, which was before the LORD, from the forefront of the house, from between the altar and the house of the LORD, and put it on the north side of the altar.

Versus

2 Chronicles 28
1Ahaz was twenty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem: but he did not that which was right in the sight of the LORD, like David his father:

2For he walked in the ways of the kings of Israel, and made also molten images for Baalim.

3Moreover he burnt incense in the valley of the son of Hinnom, and burnt his children in the fire, after the abominations of the heathen whom the LORD had cast out before the children of Israel.

4He sacrificed also and burnt incense in the high places, and on the hills, and under every green tree.

5Wherefore the LORD his God delivered him into the hand of the king of Syria; and they smote him, and carried away a great multitude of them captives, and brought them to Damascus. And he was also delivered into the hand of the king of Israel, who smote him with a great slaughter.
6For Pekah the son of Remaliah slew in Judah an hundred and twenty thousand in one day, which were all valiant men; because they had forsaken the LORD God of their fathers.

7And Zichri, a mighty man of Ephraim, slew Maaseiah the king's son, and Azrikam the governor of the house, and Elkanah that was next to the king.

8And the children of Israel carried away captive of their brethren two hundred thousand, women, sons, and daughters, and took also away much spoil from them, and brought the spoil to Samaria.

[mkh4JC]

Well, after researching it a bit more, the use of the terms almah and betulah are perhaps muddled, and this gentlemen on Christian Think Tank discusses the issue both for and against, if you are so inclined. It is a long read, but you seem to be the critical type, so you might be interested:

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof2.html

I just want to quote from there regarding the issue of timelines and whether or not the prophecy related to Christ or not:

This is where the discussion gets good...the two points above are easily 'disposed of', but the REAL CHALLENGE (as Jim indicates) is in the relationship between the historical context and the possible prophetic content--an issue that has to be worked through in EVEN the most straightforward of messianic announcements (e.g. Deut 18.15 -- questions about fulfillment in THEIR lifetime, "among your brothers", '"like unto me"--surround even such a 'vanilla' prophecy), and even fulfillment details of strictly "local" prophecies (e.g. I Kings 20:13-21 -- there is no mention of "Ahab" going first; does that mean the prophecy was NOT fulfilled 'in full'?...not at all...we have the same issue of summarization and selection of 'which details are important' we have in ALL the text.) So let's dive into this fascinating text...

But the most serious problem with this alleged messianic prophecy is that it has been taken out of context. Looking at the entire seventh chapter of Isaiah, it becomes clear that the child in question is to be born as a sign to Ahaz, King of Judah, that he will not be defeated in battle by Rezin, King of Syria, and Pekah, son of the King of Israel. Jesus' birth was some seven centuries late to be such a sign.

Jim is quite right to point out that passages MUST be taken in context. What is NOT clear is that Jim's understanding of the context is entirely accurate (or at least, complete).

[2002 Note: I should point out that there are MANY ways to construct these events and relationships--the one below is dependent on Motyer, as explained in EBCOT, more or less.]

His understanding of the HISTORICAL situation IS accurate. Rezin and Pekah, in alliance, ARE threatening Judah, and it is clear that Jim's statement is correct when applied to 7.1-9. The section of 7.1-9 is God's reassurance to him that IF (and ONLY IF!) HE STANDS FIRM IN FAITH, his kingdom will endure (otherwise, "NOT"). Ahaz was not known for his faithfulness to YHWH(see the DRAMATIC context below!), so this is a gracious offer on God's part, in honor of Ahaz' membership in "the house of David" (7.2). It is NOT an unconditional promise, but one DEPENDENT upon Ahaz' faithfulness.

[NOTE: Therefore the similar statement in "Jury" is "off" by this 'dependency' issue:



"The promised child, Immanuel, was meant as a sign to King Ahaz that his kingdom would not be destroyed by Israel and Syria."



The reason I bring this up, is that later in the "Jury" passage we find this:



"II Chronicles 28:1-6 clearly states that Ahaz was defeated by Syria and Israel, thus rendering the prophecy false. This makes Isaiah a false prophet by the standard of Deuteronomy 18:22. It is doubtful that we will be receiving prophecies from Yahweh through a false prophet. "



This statement fails in the face of the CONDITIONAL nature of God's assurances to Ahaz. Even the passage in 2 Chron REPEATEDLY points out (e.g. 1, 5, 6, 19, 22) that his defeat was due to his lack of faithfulness to YHWH--present in OUR Isaiah text.--ENDnote]



This is the HISTORICAL context.

The DRAMATIC context puts a bit of a 'spin' on this. What happens now, in 7.10-25, follows up on that gracious offer in v.9. Ahaz is addressed "again" (7.10), but by this time he has NOT followed instructions! Instead, he has tested the 'patience' of God with his faithlessness--v.13. God still gives him 'another chance' commanding him to ask for a 'you name it/you got it' kind of sign--to encourage his weak faith (v. 11). Ahaz disobeys (while mouthing a bible quote!), and Isaiah proceeds to deliver an altogether 'un-asked for' sign--a sign of judgment on the House of David! So the DRAMATIC context is one of AHAZ's failure as Davidic king, and of YHWH's displeasure with (and coming judgment on) him.

The LITERARY context breaks down like this.

· The Prophetic Word to Judah (7.1-9.7) forms a unit, organized around the use of kid's names as prophetic devices (7.3; 8.1-5, 18; 9.6,7)

· The Prophetic Word to Ephraim (9.8-11.16) shows close parallels to the above (further arguing for the unity of 7.1-9.7):

· to both there come the moment of decision as the Lord's word threatens wrath (7.1-17; 9:8-10.14)

· the time of judgment mediated by the Assyrian invasion (7.18-8.8; 10.5-15)

· the destruction of God's foes, but the salvation of a remnant (8.9-22; 10.16-34)

· the promise of a glorious hope as the Davidic monarch reigns and brings prosperity to his people (9.1-7; 11.1-16)



(See J.A. Motyer, "Context and Content in the Interpretation of Isaiah 7:14," Tyndale Bulletin 21:118-25)



· The 'Immanuel' child, promised in 7:14, has some 'odd' characteristics, throughout this literary unit:

1. He will possess the land (Isa. 8:8 "and sweep on into Judah, swirling over it, passing through it and reaching up to the neck. Its outspread wings will cover the breadth of your land, O Immanuel !" )

2. thwart all opponents (Isa. 8:10 "Devise your strategy, but it will be thwarted; propose your plan, but it will not stand, for God is with us". )

3. Possess the throne of David and represent "The Mighty God" among us (Isa. 9:6-7: For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom)

4. He is the only child promised AT ALL in this unit, and so the natural reference of 7.14 is this 'larger than life' figure of chapter 9.

So the literary context suggests (even without 7.14!) a child-figure that has characteristics MUCH LARGER than any 'normal' kid!

With these various contexts in mind, let's look at a few of the details of the passage:

· In verse 14, the Hebrew translated 'a virgin' (NIV et. al) is actually the 'almah' word, WITH THE DEFINITE ARTICLE (e.g. 'the' in English). The significance of this for our understanding of the passage can be found in the standard Hebrew grammars. In Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (as updated by Kautzsch and Cowley) this passage is discussed in 126q:



"Peculiar to Hebrew is the employment of the article to denote a single person or thing (primarily one which is as yet unknown, and therefore not capable of being defined) as being present to the mind under given circumstances. In such cases in English the indefinite article is used."



The import for our passage is that 'the virgin' is SOMEONE 'unknown' to either Ahaz or Isaiah, and hence could NOT refer to Isaiah's wife (the Prophetess of 8.3) or Ahaz' royal court virgins (as many commentators argue for). This reference is left nebulous before Ahaz...a 'floating' referent, as it were...



· The prophecy is given to not just Ahaz, but to 'the house of David'--the 'you' in v.14 is plural, and Ahaz is addressed as a representative of the line (whereas in 7.1-9, the phase 'house of David' is described as 'Ahaz and his people'--v.2). The point here is that the message is addressed to a historically-larger group (i.e. the dynasty and lineage of David) than a simple 'local' fulfillment would suggest.



· The sign was NOT an encouraging sign at all, but rather a sign of judgment. Verses 17-25 picture a devastated future--not deliverance from enemies!:

1. v17: the king of Assyria will bring a time unlike any other!

2. v18: the 'stinging bees' from Assyria will take over all the places of the land

3. v20: Assyria would shame the nation by shaving all their body hair (c.f. II Sam 10)

4. v21-22: the developed agricultural society would be reduced to a more pastoral economy

5. v23-25: the land will become wild again--briers and wild animals will necessitate bow and arrow again.



· The sign itself was NOT a 'historical present' kind of sign, but a 'future confirmation' sign, like that of Exodus 3:12--"And God said, 'I will be with you. And this will be the sign to you that it is I who have sent you: When you have brought the people out of Egypt, you will worship God on this mountain.'". That it was to occur 'beyond' the present was obvious from the indications that the child would come AFTER the destruction of 17-25. The child would experience the destruction of the Davidic monarchy before coming of age. (Indeed, even the message in 6.9-13 seems to imply that the judgments fall on Judah as well.)



· Jensen in "The Age of Immanuel" (Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 41: 220-39) makes a compelling case that vs 15 should be taken in a final sense--that Immanuel will eat the bread of affliction/judgment in order to grow in obedience (unlike Ahaz)--without any reference to an 'age of discretion'. This would mean that the prophecy of 16-25 is NOT linked time-wise with the sign-child (in spite of the English translations in 16).



· [It might be worth pointing out that even historical, non-messianic prophecies (esp. of national or international scope) OFTEN reached BEYOND the lifetime of the specific historical 'addressee'. Even in this section of Isaiah, Ahaz is promised that "Within 65 years, Ephraim will be too shattered to be a people" (7.8)! Ahaz would never live long enough to see the fulfillment of that prophecy (he would see the beginning of it, but not the end). Prophecy is OFTEN a process--not simply an event.]



The upshot of all this is this: In response to Ahaz' failure to exercise his royalty in line with Davidic mandates of loyalty and trust, God will step in to provide a TRUE Davidic king, Immanuel. This king will appear AFTER the consequences of the failure of Ahaz and family have manifested themselves in history, with the invasion of Assyria extending even to Judah (but stopping short of Jerusalem--cf. 8.8c). This Immanuel-child will appear with a 'larger than life' birth (to an unknown virgin) and manifest a 'larger than life' set of abilities/responsibilities, and function as a sign to the entire House of David, that God is active in delivering his people (in spite of Ahaz' unbelief).



This understanding of the text seems to do the best justice to the various historical contexts and literary details in the passage [notice, WITHOUT invoking notions of 'double fulfillment' , 'multiple senses', etc.--I may need those later, but not in this passage...;>) ]

In Isaiah 8:3-4, a prophetess gives birth to a son--Maher-shalal-hash-baz--who is clearly described as the fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14.[3]

Actually, not only is it NOT 'clearly described', there are in fact, NO TEXTUAL REASONS to equate Immanuel and the child of 8.3! They differ in virtually EVERY detail:

They have different names! And the passage in 8 is NOT cited as a 'fulfillment', as would have been typically done HAD it been a fulfillment (e.g. 1Kgs. 12:15; 1Kgs. 2:27; 2Kgs. 15:12; 1Kgs. 14:18; 2Kgs 7.17; 2 kgs 23.16). [the 'dual-names are okay' reply only works when the passages are far apart, btw]
Immanuel's name is positive and encouraging; Maher-shalal-hash-baz (i.e. "quick to the plunder, quick to the spoil") is ominous, alluding to the Assyria swift-power, which was soon to overtake Ephraim and Judah (v. 6-8).
The mother of Immanuel is an unknown virgin; Maher's mom is Isaiah's wife.
Immanuel is keyed to a moral or dietary spec; Maher is keyed to linguistic ability ("mama")
Immanuel is related to the larger destruction of the land; Maher is related to Damascus and Samaria (v.4)
Immanuel is from the house of David (9.7); Maher, as a descendent from Isaiah, probably was not. (although Jewish tradition says Isaiah was of royal stock)
Maher shows up as a 'bit' player (like his brother in 7.3); Immanuel is in the middle of passages that sweep wide spans of history (8.8,10).


J. Edward Barrett (1988, p. 14) points out evidence that early Christians rejected the virgin birth.

I am not familiar with Barrett's work, so I will have to wait until I can get a copy of his article, BUT I AM familiar with the historical data and find it very ODD for someone to make this claim.

The main writings of the early post-NT church--100 ad to 140 ad--[e.g. Ignatius (Smyr 1:1); the Apology of Aristides; Justin (Dialogue with Trypho, e.g. 43f, 68, 84); Irenaeus (Haer., 3, 21, 4f. and 9; 3, 22, 1-4); The Old Roman Creed] very vigorously defend the teaching of the virgin birth against two heretical movements: early gnosticism and Ebionism. This 'defense' shows that it was an accepted part of the mainstream church. If Barrett is calling the Ebionites and gnostics 'early Christians' and building an argument that they represented some 'mainstream faction', he is seriously mistaken!

One piece of Barrett's evidence is that in 1 Timothy 1:3-4, the writer (who may or may not be the apostle Paul) advises that his audience "instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith."

I have seen many strange examples of exegesis in my day, but this one ranks way up there in terms of implausibility!

A couple of quick points here:

The word translated 'genealogies' here is used only twice, here and in Titus 3.9;
This is most likely to have referred to Jews propagating pre-Christian gnosticism (with its endless genealogies of aeons between God and man--cf. Irenaeus on the mythical Ophite genealogies, in Haer.1, 30, 9);
Early church witnesses (Irenaeus and Tertullian) supposed this to be a reference to the cosmological genealogies of Valentinianism.
The phrase "myths and genealogies" had been used pejoratively from Plato on (see. The IVP Bible Background Commentary--New Testament).
The apocalyptic literature of first-century Judaism had developed quite elaborate mythological treatments of OT genealogies (along the allegorical methods of some Alexandrian Jews).
In short, there are plenty of plausible historical referents for this phrase--no need to invent one!

The earliest gospel, Mark, lacks an account of Jesus' birth, as does John, the latest gospel.

This is, of course, an argument from silence, with the assumption that if ALL FOUR of the writers didn't mention something (for whatever reason), THEN the early church must not have believed it!

For some reason, these arguments don't ever seem to be satisfied. If we have N witnesses to a event, they want "N+1"...And if EVERY SINGLE WRITER talks about the event in EXACT detail, they are accused of "collusion" and "conspiracy". And if EVERY SINGLE WRITER talks about the event, but uses different vocab, style, levels of precison, of selection of details, THEN the antagonists complain about 'contradictions' and 'disagreements'! What's a mother to do?!!!!

(I am always amused at these 'argument from silence' literary positions and the ability to spoof it are difficult to resist: "Since Jesus never spoke his own name in the Gospels, he must not have known it!").

But more seriously, there is no reason at all why ANY event has to be in EVERY gospel...even if it WAS important to the church. These authors knew about the others' works; the "synoptic problem" is ample witness to this!

And, for what its worth, there is some grammatical evidence indicating that Paul knew of, and alluded to, the special circumstances around Jesus' birth. Scholars recently have noticed that Paul used a special vocab to talk about Christ's birth:

"Whenever Paul speaks of the birth of Jesus Christ, he uses the verb ginomai , which has the broad meaning of "come to be." This is particularly significant in Gal 4:4, 23f. Jesus Christ "comes to be" by a woman, whereas Isaac and Ishmael, born of two women, are begotten and born, since the vb. gennao, used here, carries overtones of the father's act. Paul uses the same general word in Rom 1:3 ("came of the seed of David according to the flesh") and Phil 2:7 ("coming to be in the likeness of men"). On each occasion, Paul avoids the normal word for born, which is understandable if, as the traveling companion of Luke, he knew that Jesus was born miraculously."
(J. Stafford Wright, "Son", in Dictionary of New Test. Theology, p.661)



Virgin birth is obviously quite relevant to genealogy, and both Matthew and Luke present Jesus' genealogy in close proximity to the story.

It is NOT AT ALL "obvious" to me--esp. in the context of Jewish legal practice (but more on the genealogy issues later). The virgin birth passage in Is 7.14 is used STRICTLY as a messianic prophecy fulfillment, not as an argument over lineage or sinlessness or human nature (or any of the other things the church has tried to make it into!). The link with the genealogy is strictly 'locational'--in other words, one normally groups material about a common theme (e.g. background and birth) together in the same general literary 'location'. There are no explicit links, no alluded links, no theological links present in the text...to assert otherwise requires a least a little evidence.

Conclusion: When the linguistic, historical, literary, and cultural factors are considered in total...it looks messianic to me! ("If it LOOKS like a duck, and SOUNDS like a duck,...")

As I've already outlined, the Jewish people as a whole haven't accepted Jesus as their Messiah because God has largely placed a veil over their eyes, that we all might start out in unbelief. But he has not cast aside his people, as there is still a remnant who have come to the knowledge of Jesus Christ, ie Messianic Torah Judaism, and they are the only ones who really understand the Torah. Read Romans chapter 11 for the details.

And, even in the Old Testament, there are passages which point to Christ, such as Psalms 110: 1, which when Jesus referenced to the Pharisees they were silenced, and ceased asking him questions. And of course Isaiah 53. But again, the Jews largely won't come to an understanding of who Jesus is until after the rapture of the church, when God's focus will shift from the church and back towards the Jewish people. A good passage indicating that is:

'And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon Me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for Him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for his firstborn.

Zechariah 12: 10

[Imam]

peace

the sign was for Ahaz , in honor of his membership in "the house of David"

Well, here we have a writer who believes that the sign was for Ahaz

though the other commentator argued that the sign was not given to Ahaz but to the House of David!!!

the sign was not given to Ahaz but to the House of David

well .just let's never mind.....



The writer argues:

IF (and ONLY IF!) HE STANDS FIRM IN FAITH, his kingdom will endure (otherwise, "NOT"). It is NOT an unconditional promise, but one DEPENDENT upon Ahaz' faithfulness.

You know what will be the consequences to accept the writer idea that such sign was conditional?

It leads to the conclusion ,that no sign had ever been offered ,in other words, there had never been a woman got pregnant,never delivered a boy,never reached his maturity,the 2 kings had never been killed !!!
....
As Ahaz hadn't respected the condition of the offer, then God cancelled the promise and never been materialized......

in other words the passage was not a prophecy ,it was a proposal of help aimed at a specific group of people, in a specific time. that has been refused and never been materialized ...

If so,I wonder why the writer of Matthew and those alike,keep repeating that it is a prophecy that Got fulfilled 700 years later?"!

But let's go further giving a hand to the argument ,the ( not local fulfilment ,BEYOND the lifetime of the specific historical 'addressee')prophecy ......

let's rewrite the text again:

Therefore the Lord Himself will give to the future Davidic monarch a sign: Behold, after hundred of years from now, the virgin Mary shall conceive and bear a Son without a man , and shall call His name Jesus. Curds and honey Jesus shall eat, that Jesus may know to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before Jesus shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings.”

Now ,for those who wish the text to be like that, it is their duty to explain :

who are those two kings that such future Davidic monarch ,during Jesus' lifetime, was under their attack ?

Which were the two kingdoms during Jesus' lifetime that were abandoned?

The sign itself was NOT a 'historical present' kind of sign, but a 'future confirmation' sign, like that of Exodus 3:12--"And God said, 'I will be with you. And this will be the sign to you that it is I who have sent you: When you have brought the people out of Egypt, you will worship God on this mountain.'". That it was to occur 'beyond' the present was obvious

False analogy !!

Though it was a future confirmation but Isaiah has put a time limit to his prediction
(For before the Child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings.)

"II Chronicles 28:1-6 clearly states that Ahaz was defeated by Syria and Israel, thus rendering the prophecy false. This makes Isaiah a false prophet by the standard of Deuteronomy 18:22. It is doubtful that we will be receiving prophecies from Yahweh through a false prophet. "

first :
Haven't you argued before that the proposal was conditional?! if so, then we have no false promise here, under your line of reasoning . Ahaz hadn't respected the condition of the offer, then God cancelled the promise and never been materialized.....
If the offer had never been materialized ,then who will ever bother himself for a fulfilment !!!

second: Here again, (as i showed in the last post),what was unfulfilled for the writer was fulfilled for other commentators:
5Then Rezin king of Syria and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel came up to Jerusalem to war: and they besieged Ahaz, but could not overcome him.

From Wikipedia

The Southern Kingdom of Israel, known as Judah, was loyal to Assyria and refused to join the coalition. Judah was ruled by King Ahaz. In 735 B.C. Syria, under Rezin, and Israel, under Pekah, attempted to depose Ahaz through an invasion. Judah was being defeated and, according to the exuberant imagination of 2 Chronicles, lost 120,000 troops in just one day. Many significant officials were killed, including the king's son. Many others were taken away as slaves. (Telling of the same battle, 2 Kings 16:5 mentions no casualties and states that Rezin and Pekah failed to defeat Ahaz.)


however, it should be noted that Assyria's role in the conflict was reported with different results in 2 Kings 16, where Ahaz also fared a little better than reported in 2 Chronicles 28. Nevertheless, these discrepancies in the two accounts are more of an embarrassment to bibliolaters than a benefit, because such variations in the Bible record place on inerrancy believers the added burden of trying to explain why "inspired writers" would give contradictory reports of the same events. (from the excellent booklet, PROPHECIES: IMAGINARY AND UNFULFILLED by the Ex-christian missionary Farrell Till)



third: It is a sign of deception and dishonesty when someone ever find a failed prophecy ,and tries to fix the problem by mis-using it ,applying it to the wrong time and place...

It might be worth pointing out that even historical, non-messianic prophecies OFTEN reached BEYOND the lifetime of the specific historical 'addressee'. Even in this section of Isaiah, Ahaz is promised that "Within 65 years, Ephraim will be too shattered to be a people" (7.8)! Ahaz would never live long enough to see the fulfillment of that prophecy

But Ahaz would live long enough to see the land that he dreaded will be forsaken by both her kings.”

2Ki 16:9 And the king of Assyria, in answer to his request, went up against Damascus and took it, and took its people away as prisoners to Kir, and put Rezin to death.

2Ki 15:30 And Hoshea, the son of Elah, made a secret design against Pekah, the son of Remaliah, and, attacking him, put him to death and became king in his place

The sign was NOT an encouraging sign at all, but rather a sign of judgment.

the sign indeed was indeed, encouraging (if you have faith i will help you with anything you wish)
I dunno what kind of language could be more encouraging !!!

Verses 17-25 picture a devastated future--not deliverance from enemies!:

that is the best the writer can do,is to let the context and jump to Verses 17-25

anyway that is one of the funny parts in Isaiah:



There is yet a final absurdity to notice in this wonderful Messianic prophecy. With the Syrian-Israelite alliance posing a threat to Judah, Isaiah was sent to Ahaz to prophesy that the alliance would fail. After doing so, he said in his very next breath that Yahweh would bring the king of Assyria against Judah and that he would desolate the land (7:17-25). Imagine, if you can, the absolute absurdity of this. The prophet came, in effect, to say, "Don't worry; Syria and Samaria will not defeat you. Assyria will." What kind of consolation was that supposed to be? It was as if in our day the people of our country, fearing an attack from Russia, should be told by a prophet, "Fear not; Russia will not defeat you. China will." Yet, despite this flaw and the many others noted, millions of people consider this "prophecy" a remarkable example of divine foresight. In reality, the only remarkable thing about it is that so many intelligent people could have been duped into believing that it was remarkable.( PROPHECIES: IMAGINARY AND UNFULFILLED by Farrell Till)[/B]


Now for God's sake why after rewriting the text adding all the names and the time range ,christians wish it to be,still the prophecy can't be fulfilled by Jesus ?!!!!

Therefore the Lord Himself will give to the future Davidic monarch a sign: Behold, after hundred of years from now, the virgin Mary shall conceive and bear a Son without a man , and shall call His name Jesus. Curds and honey Jesus shall eat, that Jesus may know to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before Jesus shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings.”


dear fedos, If you find better expalnation , to such point ,bring it if not let's shift to another prophecy.....

let me know which prophecy you would like to discuss ...


peace

[Grace Seeker]

Imam, Fedos,

I've become lost as to what the two of you are even debating. Neither proving or disproving Isaiah 7 as referring to a young woman or a virgin proves anything either way.

As I said long ago, it is possible for Isaiah to have meant one thing by it when he originally wrote it, and yet for others at a later time to interpret it and see it applied in a different way. Thus the "prophecy" might actually have more than one fulfillment, and it wouldn't violate either the Jewish or Christian understanding of the nature of prophecy in doing so. It seems to me that you are both barking up the wrong tree in trying to make this say exactly one thing. It need not at all. In this case, one interpretation does not preclude all others, which may or may not also be valid, but must be examined in their own right, independent of other interpretations.

[mkh4JC]

Graceseeker, can you explain yourself a little better, what other prophecies were fulfilled in that like regard?

[Imam]

Graceseeker, can you explain yourself a little better, what other prophecies were fulfilled in that like regard?

Exactly ,Fedos ...

Graceseeker tries to solve the problem by the (double-application) solution......

but if he read our discussion , he will find out easily that the double-application can't solve it either...

Not only the double-application is alien concept to the bible ,but also those who wish to use it ,have to answer the same questions:

I inserted all the names and time that neccesary for the double application

Therefore the Lord Himself will give to the future Davidic monarch a sign: Behold, after hundred of years from now, the virgin Mary shall conceive and bear a Son without a man , and shall call His name Jesus. Curds and honey Jesus shall eat, that Jesus may know to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before Jesus shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings.”


who are those two kings that such future Davidic monarch ,during Jesus' lifetime, was under their attack ?

Which were the two kingdoms during Jesus' lifetime that were abandoned?

sorry to repeat the obvious again and again ......


The passage of Isaiah:7 will never and by no means ,be a reference to far future fulfilment .......

Thanx fedos for your positive input (though I disagree with it) it seems that you really spent a great deal of time searching for a suitable responses to my arguments
..
I hope we both got benefited from the discussion.......

next post will be my concept of Isaiah 53 ......


peace

[Imam]

:sl:



Isaiah :53 where it came from and where it goes?


Isaiah 53 would give us the answer to

Why Matthew and the other writers misquoted the Old Testament?

Why they chose such (sacrificial passion) to finish their story of their Savoir Messiah


By misquoting Isaiah 7, passing by Jeremiah (31:15), Hosea 11:1 , Isaiah 40:3, Jeremiah 32:9 Psalms 22:16, Zechariah 12:10 etc………. ,
the writer of Matthew gives us the clue of his intentions and what kind of a story he tells , It is a story of the type of the messiah he and his sect (which the other NT writers belong) wished it to be .

Due to their belief in the Jewish hearsay regarding how the life of Jesus was terminated on earth, their awareness of the basic messianic concept in the old testament that couldn’t have been materialized by the hearsay account they received regarding Jesus ,their awareness of the (sin for blood ritual in the old testament ),their understanding of Isaiah 53 as a passage predicting blood atonement,
all that would lead logically to their misuse of the Jewish false propaganda (we killed Jesus).

Though they are not to be blamed for their belief in the hearsay, as nothing wondrous about a prophet who been killed(if it was true the hearsay) and been added to such list of the murdered prophets , but they are to be blamed for their awful mistake is that they convinced themselves and tried to convince others that such death has something with the ( blood for sin) Old testament concept (which the Hebrews borrowed from their pagan neighbours).....

The writers tried their best to find legitimacy to sell their (sacrificed messiah) concept, they started a never-ending search for Old testament passages that could be connected with the hearsay accounts they had, in doing so they misquoted the text , when they found the misquotation can't help the hearsay account, they invented things in the story line ,and invented old testament passages that not even exist in the old testament itself eg . Matthew (2:23),.. , (for more in this point see our next posts)

in our discussion about Isaiah:7 , we suggested the key to be ( the context)...
Now the suggested key for Isaiah :53 would be ( the concept of blood sacrifice) such key , not only shows where the problem of Isaiah 53 came from ,but also will answer the Question ,why the writers wanted the story of Jesus to be a (sacrificial passion).......

let's read The text under discussion:

"1 Awake, awake; put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city: for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean.2 Shake thyself from the dust; arise, and sit down, O Jerusalem: loose thyself from the bands of thy neck, O captive daughter of Zion.3 For thus saith the LORD, Ye have sold yourselves for nought; and ye shall be redeemed without money.4 For thus saith the Lord GOD, My people went down aforetime into Egypt to sojourn there; and the Assyrian oppressed them without cause.5 Now therefore, what have I here, saith the LORD, that my people is taken away for nought? they that rule over them make them to howl, saith the LORD; and my name continually every day is blasphemed.6 Therefore my people shall know my name: therefore they shall know in that day that I am he that doth speak: behold, it is I.7 How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth!
8 Thy watchmen shall lift up the voice; with the voice together shall they sing: for they shall see eye to eye, when the LORD shall bring again Zion.
9 Break forth into joy, sing together, ye waste places of Jerusalem: for the LORD hath comforted his people, he hath redeemed Jerusalem.10 The LORD hath made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God.11 Depart ye, depart ye, go ye out from thence, touch no unclean thing; go ye out of the midst of her; be ye clean, that bear the vessels of the LORD.12 For ye shall not go out with haste, nor go by flight: for the LORD will go before you; and the God of Israel will be your rereward. Behold, my servant shall prosper, he shall be exalted, and extolled, and be very high. As many were astonished at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men: So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.Who would have believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? For he grew up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he had no form nor comeliness; and when we see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and as one from whom men hide their face he was despised, and we esteemed him not.Surely he hath borne griefs inflicted by us, and suffered sorrows we have caused: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded through our transgressions, bruised through our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his wounds we were healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath caused the iniquity of us all to fall upon him.He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: as a lamb which is brought to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth. He was taken away from rule and from judgment; and his life who shall recount? for he was cut off out of the land of the living; through the transgressions of my people was he stricken. And one made his grave among the wicked, and his tomb among the rich; although he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.But it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief; if his soul shall consider it a recompense for guilt, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my servant justify the righteous before many, and he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong because he hath laid open his soul unto death, and was numbered with transgressors; and he took off the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.*


Before showing my concept ,and how one properly understand the problem of Isaiah 53 , explaining why it can by no means be a valid passage
To be a prophecy or even a true description….

Let’s highlight the common, heated , debate between Jews and Christians regarding Isaiah 53........

in one hand Christians claim that the servant must be Jesus, in the other hand Jews affirms that the servant is not Jesus ....

The following is the Jewish academic refutation of the Christian interpretation of the text verse by verse:




Behold, my servant shall prosper, he shall be exalted, and extolled, and be very high


1- There is no reason to believe that the servant referred to is Jesus. "Servant" refers to anyone who works hard for God. It is used in reference to Moses (Num. 12:7, Job 1:Cool, all the prophets (Amos 3:7), and all of Israel (Lev. 25:42). The servant is expressly identified with Jacob or Israel in Isa. 41:8-9, 42:19, 44:1-2, and 49:3 . Judging from the context, it refers to the Jews , , not Jesus.
2- The chapter divisions did not exist until about four hundred years ago. Immediately before Isaiah 52:13-53:12 Isaiah is predicting the gathering of the exiles and just after Isa. 54:1 he is talking of the glorious promises descriptive of the same events. Therefore, logically, all in-between ( the midst of Isaiah's "Messages of Consolation", ) is speaking of the same thing.
3- Christians cling to this chapter so dearly as proof that the Messiah is to suffer is because it is one of those very few places where they can attempt to do so.
4- Most rabbinic interpretation of Isaiah 53 ascribes the “servant” to the nation of Israel who silently endured unimaginable suffering at the hands of its gentile oppressors.
5- It would be an indignity to apply "servant" to the godhead.
6- several Christian scholarly books, like Revised Standard Version Oxford Study Edition Bible, The Revised Standard Version tells us that Isaiah 53 is about national Israel. New Revised Standard Version and New English Bible echo this analysis.
7- When did Jesus prosper? How can a condition of prosperity or success be predicated of the Godhead?


so will he sprinkle many nations, and kings will shut their mouths because of him. For what they were not told, they will see, and what they have not heard, they will understand. (Isaiah 52:15)

1-What king ceased to speak because of Jesus?

2-The description refers to Israel:

And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the LORD shall name. (Isaiah 62:2)
The stunned reaction of the world’s nations to the unexpected vindication and redemption of the Jewish nation in the messianic age is a reoccurring theme throughout the Hebrew Scriptures


Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? (Isaiah 53:1)

1-The speaker from 52:13 to the end of chapter 52 is God himself, whereas from the beginning of 53:1 through 53:9 the gentile kings of nations are speaking in their numbed astonishment. This narrative expressed by the surprised leaders of the surrounding gentile nations is referred to in 52:15. This alternation in speakers is evident in that verses 52:13 and 53:11 speak of "My [i.e. God's] servant," while the intervening verses refer to "our transgressions"

2-The “arm of the Lord” is the redemption of Israel, and has nothing to do with Jesus.
With your mighty arm you redeemed your people, the descendants of Jacob and Joseph. Selah (Psalms 77:15)


He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground.


Israel grew up like a plant:

No one looked on you with pity or had compassion enough to do any of these things for you. Rather, you were thrown out into the open field, for on the day you were born you were despised. " 'Then I passed by and saw you kicking about in your blood, and as you lay there in your blood I said to you, "Live!" I made you grow like a plant of the field. (Ezekiel 16:5-7)

I will be as the dew unto Israel: he shall grow as the lily, and cast forth his roots as Lebanon. (Hosea 14:5)
Israel grew up like a tender shoot:
Then will all your people be righteous and they will possess the land forever. They are the shoot I have planted, the work of my hands, for the display of my splendour. (Isaiah 60:21)


He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. (Isaiah 53:2-3)

the servant is Ill ,bad looking, despised and rejected by men, familiar with sorrow and suffering

All such descriptions make more sense to Israel not Jesus

1- How many people really hated Jesus as opposed to the number of tribes who hated the Jews?

2- The first book of the Talmud Berachoth page 5a states "If the Holy One, blessed be He, is pleased with a man, He crushes him with painful sufferings. For it is said: And the Lord was pleased with [him, hence] He crushed him by disease (Isa. 53:10, an exegetical reading). Now, you might think that this is so even if he did not accept them with love. Therefore it is said: To see if his soul would offer itself in restitution. Even as the trespass-offering must be brought by consent, so also the sufferings must be endured with consent. And if he did accept them, what is his reward? He will see his seed, prolong his days. And more than that, his knowledge [of the Torah] will endure with him. For it is said: The purpose of the Lord will prosper in his hand.

3- Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about him spread through the whole countryside. He taught in their synagogues, and everyone praised him. (Luke 4:14-15)

4- we hid as it were our faces from him" (53:3). The Jews did not hide their faces from him but condemned him many times .

5- And no, disease does not mean sin or any other metaphorical interpretation. The historical context confirms this, early Jewish sources confirm this - it refers to leprosy.” The Rabbis said: His name is 'the leper scholar,' as it is written, Surely he hath borne our grieves, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted." (Sanh. 98b)
Jesus was no leper. He wasn't smitten, afflicted, plagued, crushed by disease. Jesus doesn't fit.

Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. Isaiah 53:4)

see our conclusion below


the preposition "mi" in Isaiah 53:5 and 53:8 is commonly translated as "for." The meaning of "mi" is not "for" but rather "from" or "because of". Thus the Judaica Press Tanach translates Isaiah 53:5 as: "But he was pained because of our transgressions, crushed because of our iniquities; the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his wound we were healed."


We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. (Isaiah 53:6)

see our conclusion below


He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. (Isaiah 53:7)


Jesus not only opened his mouth when oppressed but was struck in the process. He even cried for help.

From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land. About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46)



By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken. (Isaiah 53:8)


1- Israel was politically oppressed by Babylon king Nebuchadrezzar, who conquered Jerusalem in 587 B.C.E. and destroyed the Temple. The Israelites were “taken away” into captivity.
2- the Hebrew phrase "mi-pesha’ ‘ami niga’ lamo" is translated as "for the transgression of my people was he stricken". The word "lamo" is the poetic form of the Hebrew "lahem" which means their/them not him and is used as such throughout the Hebrew Bible. The Jewish rendition of Isaiah 53:8 then is: "because of the transgression of my people, a plague befell them." Based on this, the servant is argued to be a collective entity not a person. This claim is supported by the fact that the Hebrew word for "death" in the following verse of Isaiah 53:9, "And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death;" is plural.


He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death,



1- The word used in Hebrew is (deaths) and not death...

2- The suffering servant's "deaths" as well as the description of his subsequent revival are indeed, metaphors for the fortunes of Israel, he was cut off out of the land of the living" (verse 8), "his grave was set" (verse 9), and "in his deaths" (verse 9) are not to be taken literally. The metaphor "his grave was set" describing an event in the life of God's suffering servant, is similar to the statement, "for he was cut off out of the land of the living" (verse 8). Metaphors of this type, used to describe deep anguish and subjection to enemies, are part of the biblical idiom. Similar metaphorical language is used, for example, in Ezekiel 37 to express the condition preceding relief and rejuvenation following the end of exile. Ezekiel provides the clues needed for understanding the phraseology used by Isaiah. The metaphorical images employed by Isaiah-"cut off out of the land of the living" and "grave"-are used in Ezekiel's description of the valley of the dry bones, where the bones symbolize the exiled Jewish people. Lost in apparently hopeless exile, the Jewish people exclaim: "we are clean cut off" (Ezekiel 37:11). In reply, God promises: "And I will put My spirit in you, and you shall live, and I will place you in your own land" (Ezekiel 37:14). It is now clear that Isaiah's phrase, "for he was cut off out of the land of the living," refers to the deadly condition of exile. Similarly, the term "grave" in Isaiah-"And his grave was set with the wicked"-refers to life in exile as used in Ezekiel: "I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves" (Ezekiel 37:12), where "graves" is a metaphor for the lands of exile.

The messages of these two prophets are addressed to God's suffering servant. The sovereign national entity was destroyed but the Jewish people survive, albeit in exile from which God will restore them to their land. Although "cut off out of the land of the living" and now living in the lands of exile, the "grave set with the wicked," God will free the servant from this fate and restore him to the "land of the living," the Land of Israel. That Isaiah speaks in the singular and Ezekiel in the plural is of no consequence, for the people of Israel may be spoken of in both forms (for example, Exodus 14:31, Psalms 81:12-14).
Paralleling "grave set with the wicked" is the phrase "with the rich in his deaths." "Rich" here refers to the powerful men and institutions of the Gentile nations among whom the personified people of Israel are exiled.
"And his grave was set with the wicked" describes an imposed fate and not something accepted voluntarily by the servant. Furthermore, this was not a literal death, as the servant was alive when "his grave was set" (cf. Genesis 30:1; Exodus 10:17; Numbers 12:12; 2 Samuel 9:8, 16:9; Jonah 4:9 for examples of figurative death). This verse informs us that despite the imposed fate of exile, Israel continued to be faithful to God. Accordingly, Israel is to afterwards enjoy the fruits of his sacrifice. The phrase "in his deaths" signifies that the suffering servant of the Lord experienced figuratively many "deaths" in exile. His anguish was multiplied exceedingly by the constant harassment of his enemies.

3-The Midrash Rabba on Deuteronomy says, "The Israelites poured out their soul to die in the captivity, as it is said, ‘Because he poured out his soul to die.’(Isaiah 53:12)”"[7]

though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth. (Isaiah 53:9)


Jesus according to the New Testament had done some violence and deception

1- John 2:15 ("And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables" besides his failed prophecies eg,the prophecies of second coming,peter denial etc....

2- But I will leave within you the meek and humble, who trust in the name of the LORD. The remnant of Israel will do no wrong; they will speak no lies, nor will deceit be found in their mouths. They will eat and lie down and no one will make them afraid." (Zephaniah 3:12-13)

obviously If we understand the verse as talking about sinless ness, neither Jesus(as the NT tells) nor Israel could fit such description

the text doesn't talk about a sinless being from his-their birth nor someone that never done violence all his-their life long, it simply affirms that such being(s) had suffered though did nothing bad for such punishment...... he-they could have had countless flaws all his-their life but, he-they did nothing wrong to deserve such punishment.....

And that could be applicable to countless innocent people all over history

Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin

1- Most Jewish scholars equate the phrase "It pleased..." with the concept of divine kingship. All royal acts in an absolute kingdom take place at the "pleasure" of the king, regardless of whether they bring the king actual joy or not. Additionally, Jewish theologians contend that one need not be guiltless for his suffering to have meaning.

"He shall see seed, he shall prolong days.

1- The Hebrew word for “seed” is zerah, and it always refers to physical descendants:


2- Hardly a fitting description of a man who died childless in his thirty third year!!
According to the words "He shall see seed, he shall prolong days," the suffering servant is to be rewarded for his selflessness in the service of the Almighty by being blessed with children and prolongation of life. These two promises must be treated as a unit, as described in greater detail in Isaiah 65:20-23. Each promise complements the other, highlighting the ancient Hebraic ideal of viewing children and a long life as the two greatest rewards God gives to man here on earth. This is further illustrated in Job 5:25-26: "You shall know also that your seed shall be great, and your offspring as the grass of the earth. You shall come to your grave in ripe age, as a shock of corn in its season." From the manner in which the Hebrew word zer'a ("seed") is used in the Scriptures, there can be no doubt that actual physical offspring is meant here.
Generally, the Hebrew word bayn ("son") may be employed metaphorically with the meaning "disciples," but never is the term zer'a ("seed") used in this sense. For example, "And Abraham said: 'Behold to me You have given no seed (zer'a), and, see the son (ben) of my house is my heir.' And, behold, the word of the Lord came to him, saying: 'This man shall not be your heir, but he that shall come forth out of your own bowels shall be your heir'" (Genesis 15:3-4). Hence, zer'a must be taken literally, which rules out the possibility that it refers to Jesus since he had no children of his own
The second part of the promise, ". . . he shall prolong days," also cannot be applied to Jesus, who died at a young age. To apply these words, as Christian commentators do, is not only evasive but also meaningless. How can such a promise have any meaning for Jesus, who is viewed as being of divine substance and whose existence is believed by Christianity to be eternal? There would be no need for God to assure a fellow member of the Trinity eternal life.
In understanding the meaning of the phrase ". . . he shall prolong days" it should be understood that there is a difference in meaning between the concept of prolonging of days and that of gaining eternal life. The concept of a prolonged life cannot be treated as the equivalent of eternal life because in an eternal context, time of any duration is of no consequence. Consequently, one cannot speak of an eternal being as having his days prolonged: "Are Your days as the days of man, or Your years as a man's days?" (Job 10:5). God must be referred to as eternal: "The number of his years is unsearchable" (Job 36:26). He is the first, He is the last, He cannot be anything else. Prolonging the days of one who is already supposed to be eternal would make his life longer than eternity. That is an obvious impossibility. If the promise of prolonged days is applied to Jesus, he could not be of divine origin.

The crucial question to understand Isaiah 53,

Where the theme of Isaiah 53 came from?


No doubt the Idea of Korban (sacrifiece) has a divine origin ,but It was corrupted ,changed from pious (act of obedience to God ) as Cain and Abel , Abraham and his son story to satanic ( Blood for sin ritual )

such satanic concept , Blood for sin ,had its wicked effects all , it has corrupted nations after nations all over history .... beginning from pre-historic nations passing by Ancient Egyptians, far east nations ,Scandinavians , Africans , south Americans , Hebrews , Christians ...............

as if a guilty person is convinced that an animal or human had given life to atone him... for such person(s) ,whatever amount of preaching of the importance of being with morality he may listen to , he will continue committing sins without feeling ashamed of his deeds.....

The offerings in atonement for transgressions concept in the Old Testament is the same theme of the pagan neighbours (and all the heathen world without exception) to the Jews and the New Testament writers continued the same theme making it more and more destructive to morality ...

Just as in Judaism sins could be forgiven through the offering and the pouring out of the blood of an "unblemished" lamb (cf. Lev 4:32), so Christians believe they can be freed from sin by the blood of Jesus, the unblemished Lamb of God.

in the Old Testament some writers were aware of the negatives of such concept ,they for sure were not able to abolish the practice , cause if they tried to , the masses would be angry .....but they spoke out against those Israelites who brought forth sacrifices but did not act in accord with the precepts of the Torah.

With what shall I approach the Lord,
Do homage to God on high?
Shall I approach Him with burnt offerings,
With calves a year old?
Would the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams,
With myriads of streams of oil?
Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression,
The fruit of my body for my sins?
Man has told you what is good.
But what does the Lord require of you?
Only to do justice
And to love goodness,
And to walk humbly with your God (Micah 6:6-8).

All a man's ways seem right to him, but the LORD weighs the heart. To do what is right and just is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice. (Proverbs 21:2-3)

The Maimonides , a medieval Jewish scholar, was aware of the pagan connection with the blood for sin ritual ,taking the view that God understood that the Israelites were used to the animal sacrifices that the surrounding pagan tribes used as the primary way to commune with their gods. , it was only natural that Israelites would believe that sacrifice would be a necessary part of the relationship between God and man. . It would have been too much to have expected the Israelites to leap from pagan worship to prayer and meditation in one step. (Book III, Chapter 32. Translated by M. Friedlander, 1904, The Guide for the Perplexed, Dover Publications, 1956 edition.)

such pagan concept ( blood for sin) infected the mentality of the Bible writers ,as the more they write about it, the worse would it came to be......

in the beginning, the concept was offering animal to atone for some transgressions ,till Isaiah 53 , making the concept worse ,that a being (If the single understanding to be valid) atoned for all transgressions ....

the group which the New Testament writers belong to ,picked such concept ,and as they were aware that they can by no means convince themselves and others that Jesus could have fulfilled the actual exhaustive breadth of Messianic prophecy ,having believed the hearsay propagated by some Jews who hated Jesus (we killed Jesus the magician) ,they convinced themselves that his death was not of that normal kind , but it was sacrificial death .....that is why we find such graphic description in the contradictory ,hearsay accounts of the so called ( crucifixion-resurrection) of Jesus......



To sum up:

approaching Isaiah 53 with objective approach (neither Jewish nor christian)we begin with what Thomas Paine commented regarding the issue :

Isaiah, or at least the writer of the book that bears his name, employs the whole of this chapter, Iiii., in lamenting the sufferings of some deceased persons, of whom he speaks very pathetically. It is a monody on the death of a friend; but he mentions not the name of the person, nor gives any circumstance of him by which he can be personally known; and it is this silence, which is evidence of nothing, that Matthew has laid hold of, to put the name of Christ to it; as if the chiefs of the Jews, whose sorrows were then great, and the times they lived in big with danger, were never thinking about their own affairs, nor the fate of their own friends, but were continually running a Wild-Goose chase into futurity. To make a monody into a prophecy is an absurdity. The characters and circumstances of men, even in the different ages of the world, are so much alike, that what is said of one may with propriety be said of many; but this fitness does not make the passage into a prophecy; and none but an impostor, or a bigot, would call it so.
Isaiah, in deploring the hard fate and loss of his friend, mentions nothing of him but what the human lot of man is subject to. All the cases he states of him, his persecutions, his imprisonment, his patience in suffering, and his perseverance in principle, are all within the line of nature; they belong exclusively to none, and may with justness be said of many. But if Jesus Christ was the person the church represents him to be, that which would exclusively apply to him must be something that could not apply to any other person; something beyond the line of nature, something beyond the lot of mortal man; and there are no such expressions in this chapter, nor any other chapter in the Old Testament.
It is no exclusive description to say of a person, as is said of the person Isaiah is lamenting in this chapter, He was oppressed and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; he is brought as a Lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before his shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. This may be said of thousands of persons, who have suffered oppressions and unjust death with patience, silence, and perfect resignation[B].

Truly . All the cases he states of him, his persecutions, his imprisonment, his patience in suffering, and his perseverance in principle, are all within the line of nature; they belong exclusively to none, and may with justness be said of many.

What about (But he was wounded through our transgressions, )?

In both cases (whether Christians or Jews interpretations) such verse is not a valid language for a prophecy or a description..

We can’t accept Jewish interpretation , as neither Jews nor any other nation whatever degree of morality may get, would suffer of others sins..
As one of the basic concepts regarding God is that he is just

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. (Ezekiel 18:20)


We can’t accept the Christian interpretation(which makes less sense than the Jewish one) as well , cause of

1-the point we have highlighted , where Isaiah 53 idea came from(paganism) and where it goes (the mind of the New testament writers),

2- some of the description can’t be applicable to Jesus story (according to the NT)And that makes more sense to the Jewish interpretation

3-the only thing in the description which Christian would claim to be exclusive to Jesus (wounded through our transgressions) is a not a proper language to make a prophecy ,as it is something can never be verified by the naked eyes ,exactly just as ,

let's imagine finding a text about Osiris ,claiming that by his murder he atoned for the ancient Egyptians sins !!!
How on earth one could ever verify the truth of such claim?!!!

The best Christians could offer to support such (impossible to be verified ,common in the pagan mythology) description ,is the contradictory accounts of ( the crucifixion-resurrection) which makes their position weaker and weaker…

Why shouldn’t we accept the contradictory accounts of ( the crucifixion-resurrection) ?
Because

The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going. Proverbs 14:15



In a word , Isaiah 53 is a lie been inspired by ancient lie and will inspire another future lie…..


more posts related to the topic

The Quran concept regarding the crucifiction:

Juda, or none?

http://www.islamicboard.com/discover...s-islam-4.html



http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...tml#post979966

peace for all

[mkh4JC]

:sl:

Isaiah :53 where it came from and where it goes?

Isaiah 53 would give us the answer to:

Why Matthew and the other writers misquoted the Old Testament?

Why they chose such (sacrificial passion) to finish their story of their Savoir Messiah ?


By misquoting Isaiah 7, passing by Jeremiah (31:15), Hosea 11:1 , Isaiah 40:3, Jeremiah 32:9 Psalms 22:16, Zechariah 12:10 etc………. ,
the writer of Matthew gives us the clue of his intentions and what kind of a story he tells , It is a story of the type of the messiah he and his sect (which the other NT writers belong) wished it to be .

Due to their belief in the Jewish hearsay regarding how the life of Jesus was terminated on earth, their awareness of the basic messianic concept in the old testament that couldn’t have been materialized by the hearsay account they received regarding Jesus ,their awareness of the (sin for blood ritual in the old testament ),their understanding of Isaiah 53 as a passage predicting blood atonement,
all that would lead logically to their misuse of the Jewish false propaganda (we killed Jesus), while they are not to be blamed for their belief in the hearsay, as nothing wondrous about a prophet who been killed(if it was true the hearsay) and been added to such list of the murdered prophets , but their awful mistake is that they convinced themselves and tried to convince others that such death has something with the ( blood for sin) Old testament concept (which the Hebrews borrowed from their pagan neighbours).....

The writers tried their best to find legitimacy to sell their (sacrificed messiah) concept, they started a never-ending search for Old testament passages that could be connected with the hearsay accounts they had, in doing so they misquoted the text , when they found the misquotation can't help the hearsay account, they invented things in the story line ,and invented old testament passages that not even exist in the old testament itself eg . Matthew (2:23),.. , (for more in this point see our conclusion )

in our discussion about Isaiah:7 , we suggested the key to be ( the context)...
Now the suggested key for Isaiah :53 would be ( the concept of blood sacrifice) such key , not only shows where the problem of Isaiah 53 came from ,but also will answer the Question ,why the writers wanted the story of Jesus to be a (sacrificial passion).......

let's read The text under discussion:

"1 Awake, awake; put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city: for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean.2 Shake thyself from the dust; arise, and sit down, O Jerusalem: loose thyself from the bands of thy neck, O captive daughter of Zion.3 For thus saith the LORD, Ye have sold yourselves for nought; and ye shall be redeemed without money.4 For thus saith the Lord GOD, My people went down aforetime into Egypt to sojourn there; and the Assyrian oppressed them without cause.5 Now therefore, what have I here, saith the LORD, that my people is taken away for nought? they that rule over them make them to howl, saith the LORD; and my name continually every day is blasphemed.6 Therefore my people shall know my name: therefore they shall know in that day that I am he that doth speak: behold, it is I.7 How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth!
8 Thy watchmen shall lift up the voice; with the voice together shall they sing: for they shall see eye to eye, when the LORD shall bring again Zion.
9 Break forth into joy, sing together, ye waste places of Jerusalem: for the LORD hath comforted his people, he hath redeemed Jerusalem.10 The LORD hath made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God.11 Depart ye, depart ye, go ye out from thence, touch no unclean thing; go ye out of the midst of her; be ye clean, that bear the vessels of the LORD.12 For ye shall not go out with haste, nor go by flight: for the LORD will go before you; and the God of Israel will be your rereward. Behold, my servant shall prosper, he shall be exalted, and extolled, and be very high. As many were astonished at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men: So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.Who would have believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? For he grew up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he had no form nor comeliness; and when we see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and as one from whom men hide their face he was despised, and we esteemed him not.Surely he hath borne griefs inflicted by us, and suffered sorrows we have caused: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded through our transgressions, bruised through our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his wounds we were healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath caused the iniquity of us all to fall upon him.He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: as a lamb which is brought to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth. He was taken away from rule and from judgment; and his life who shall recount? for he was cut off out of the land of the living; through the transgressions of my people was he stricken. And one made his grave among the wicked, and his tomb among the rich; although he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.But it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief; if his soul shall consider it a recompense for guilt, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my servant justify the righteous before many, and he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong because he hath laid open his soul unto death, and was numbered with transgressors; and he took off the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.*


Before showing my concept ,and how one properly understand the problem of Isaiah 53 , explaining why it can by no means be a valid passage
To be a prophecy or even a true description….

Let’s highlight the common, heated , debate between Jews and Christians regarding Isaiah 53........

in one hand Christians claim that the servant must be Jesus, in the other hand Jews affirms that the servant is not Jesus ....

The following is the Jewish academic refutation of the Christian interpretation of the text verse by verse:

Behold, my servant shall prosper, he shall be exalted, and extolled, and be very high


1- There is no reason to believe that the servant referred to is Jesus. "Servant" refers to anyone who works hard for God. It is used in reference to Moses (Num. 12:7, Job 1:Cool, all the prophets (Amos 3:7), and all of Israel (Lev. 25:42). The servant is expressly identified with Jacob or Israel in Isa. 41:8-9, 42:19, 44:1-2, and 49:3 . Judging from the context, it refers to the Jews , , not Jesus.
2- The chapter divisions did not exist until about four hundred years ago. Immediately before Isaiah 52:13-53:12 Isaiah is predicting the gathering of the exiles and just after Isa. 54:1 he is talking of the glorious promises descriptive of the same events. Therefore, logically, all in-between ( the midst of Isaiah's "Messages of Consolation", ) is speaking of the same thing.
3- Christians cling to this chapter so dearly as proof that the Messiah is to suffer is because it is one of those very few places where they can attempt to do so.
4- Most rabbinic interpretation of Isaiah 53 ascribes the “servant” to the nation of Israel who silently endured unimaginable suffering at the hands of its gentile oppressors.
5- It would be an indignity to apply "servant" to the godhead.
6- several Christian scholarly books, like Revised Standard Version Oxford Study Edition Bible, The Revised Standard Version tells us that Isaiah 53 is about national Israel. New Revised Standard Version and New English Bible echo this analysis.
7- When did Jesus prosper? How can a condition of prosperity or success be predicated of the Godhead?


so will he sprinkle many nations, and kings will shut their mouths because of him. For what they were not told, they will see, and what they have not heard, they will understand. (Isaiah 52:15)

1-What king ceased to speak because of Jesus?

2-The description refers to Israel:

And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the LORD shall name. (Isaiah 62:2)
The stunned reaction of the world’s nations to the unexpected vindication and redemption of the Jewish nation in the messianic age is a reoccurring theme throughout the Hebrew Scriptures


Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? (Isaiah 53:1)

1-The speaker from 52:13 to the end of chapter 52 is God himself, whereas from the beginning of 53:1 through 53:9 the gentile kings of nations are speaking in their numbed astonishment. This narrative expressed by the surprised leaders of the surrounding gentile nations is referred to in 52:15. This alternation in speakers is evident in that verses 52:13 and 53:11 speak of "My [i.e. God's] servant," while the intervening verses refer to "our transgressions"

2-The “arm of the Lord” is the redemption of Israel, and has nothing to do with Jesus.
With your mighty arm you redeemed your people, the descendants of Jacob and Joseph. Selah (Psalms 77:15)


He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground.


Israel grew up like a plant:

No one looked on you with pity or had compassion enough to do any of these things for you. Rather, you were thrown out into the open field, for on the day you were born you were despised. " 'Then I passed by and saw you kicking about in your blood, and as you lay there in your blood I said to you, "Live!" I made you grow like a plant of the field. (Ezekiel 16:5-7)

I will be as the dew unto Israel: he shall grow as the lily, and cast forth his roots as Lebanon. (Hosea 14:5)
Israel grew up like a tender shoot:
Then will all your people be righteous and they will possess the land forever. They are the shoot I have planted, the work of my hands, for the display of my splendour. (Isaiah 60:21)


He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. (Isaiah 53:2-3)

the servant is Ill ,bad looking, despised and rejected by men, familiar with sorrow and suffering

All such descriptions make more sense to Israel not Jesus

1- How many people really hated Jesus as opposed to the number of tribes who hated the Jews?

2- The first book of the Talmud Berachoth page 5a states "If the Holy One, blessed be He, is pleased with a man, He crushes him with painful sufferings. For it is said: And the Lord was pleased with [him, hence] He crushed him by disease (Isa. 53:10, an exegetical reading). Now, you might think that this is so even if he did not accept them with love. Therefore it is said: To see if his soul would offer itself in restitution. Even as the trespass-offering must be brought by consent, so also the sufferings must be endured with consent. And if he did accept them, what is his reward? He will see his seed, prolong his days. And more than that, his knowledge [of the Torah] will endure with him. For it is said: The purpose of the Lord will prosper in his hand.

3- Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about him spread through the whole countryside. He taught in their synagogues, and everyone praised him. (Luke 4:14-15)

4- we hid as it were our faces from him" (53:3). The Jews did not hide their faces from him but condemned him many times .

5- And no, disease does not mean sin or any other metaphorical interpretation. The historical context confirms this, early Jewish sources confirm this - it refers to leprosy.” The Rabbis said: His name is 'the leper scholar,' as it is written, Surely he hath borne our grieves, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted." (Sanh. 98b)
Jesus was no leper. He wasn't smitten, afflicted, plagued, crushed by disease. Jesus doesn't fit.

Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. Isaiah 53:4)

see our conclusion below


the preposition "mi" in Isaiah 53:5 and 53:8 is commonly translated as "for." The meaning of "mi" is not "for" but rather "from" or "because of". Thus the Judaica Press Tanach translates Isaiah 53:5 as: "But he was pained because of our transgressions, crushed because of our iniquities; the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his wound we were healed."


We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. (Isaiah 53:6)

see our conclusion below


He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. (Isaiah 53:7)


Jesus not only opened his mouth when oppressed but was struck in the process. He even cried for help.

From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land. About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46)



By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken. (Isaiah 53:8)


1- Israel was politically oppressed by Babylon king Nebuchadrezzar, who conquered Jerusalem in 587 B.C.E. and destroyed the Temple. The Israelites were “taken away” into captivity.
2- the Hebrew phrase "mi-pesha’ ‘ami niga’ lamo" is translated as "for the transgression of my people was he stricken". The word "lamo" is the poetic form of the Hebrew "lahem" which means their/them not him and is used as such throughout the Hebrew Bible. The Jewish rendition of Isaiah 53:8 then is: "because of the transgression of my people, a plague befell them." Based on this, the servant is argued to be a collective entity not a person. This claim is supported by the fact that the Hebrew word for "death" in the following verse of Isaiah 53:9, "And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death;" is plural.


He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death,



1- The word used in Hebrew is (deaths) and not death...

2- The suffering servant's "deaths" as well as the description of his subsequent revival are indeed, metaphors for the fortunes of Israel, he was cut off out of the land of the living" (verse 8), "his grave was set" (verse 9), and "in his deaths" (verse 9) are not to be taken literally. The metaphor "his grave was set" describing an event in the life of God's suffering servant, is similar to the statement, "for he was cut off out of the land of the living" (verse 8). Metaphors of this type, used to describe deep anguish and subjection to enemies, are part of the biblical idiom. Similar metaphorical language is used, for example, in Ezekiel 37 to express the condition preceding relief and rejuvenation following the end of exile. Ezekiel provides the clues needed for understanding the phraseology used by Isaiah. The metaphorical images employed by Isaiah-"cut off out of the land of the living" and "grave"-are used in Ezekiel's description of the valley of the dry bones, where the bones symbolize the exiled Jewish people. Lost in apparently hopeless exile, the Jewish people exclaim: "we are clean cut off" (Ezekiel 37:11). In reply, God promises: "And I will put My spirit in you, and you shall live, and I will place you in your own land" (Ezekiel 37:14). It is now clear that Isaiah's phrase, "for he was cut off out of the land of the living," refers to the deadly condition of exile. Similarly, the term "grave" in Isaiah-"And his grave was set with the wicked"-refers to life in exile as used in Ezekiel: "I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves" (Ezekiel 37:12), where "graves" is a metaphor for the lands of exile.

The messages of these two prophets are addressed to God's suffering servant. The sovereign national entity was destroyed but the Jewish people survive, albeit in exile from which God will restore them to their land. Although "cut off out of the land of the living" and now living in the lands of exile, the "grave set with the wicked," God will free the servant from this fate and restore him to the "land of the living," the Land of Israel. That Isaiah speaks in the singular and Ezekiel in the plural is of no consequence, for the people of Israel may be spoken of in both forms (for example, Exodus 14:31, Psalms 81:12-14).
Paralleling "grave set with the wicked" is the phrase "with the rich in his deaths." "Rich" here refers to the powerful men and institutions of the Gentile nations among whom the personified people of Israel are exiled.
"And his grave was set with the wicked" describes an imposed fate and not something accepted voluntarily by the servant. Furthermore, this was not a literal death, as the servant was alive when "his grave was set" (cf. Genesis 30:1; Exodus 10:17; Numbers 12:12; 2 Samuel 9:8, 16:9; Jonah 4:9 for examples of figurative death). This verse informs us that despite the imposed fate of exile, Israel continued to be faithful to God. Accordingly, Israel is to afterwards enjoy the fruits of his sacrifice. The phrase "in his deaths" signifies that the suffering servant of the Lord experienced figuratively many "deaths" in exile. His anguish was multiplied exceedingly by the constant harassment of his enemies.

3-The Midrash Rabba on Deuteronomy says, "The Israelites poured out their soul to die in the captivity, as it is said, ‘Because he poured out his soul to die.’(Isaiah 53:12)”"[7]

though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth. (Isaiah 53:9)


Jesus according to the New Testament had done some violence and deception

1- John 2:15 ("And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables" besides his failed prophecies eg,the prophecies of second coming,peter denial etc....

2- But I will leave within you the meek and humble, who trust in the name of the LORD. The remnant of Israel will do no wrong; they will speak no lies, nor will deceit be found in their mouths. They will eat and lie down and no one will make them afraid." (Zephaniah 3:12-13)

obviously If we understand the verse as talking about sinless ness, neither Jesus(as the NT tells) nor Israel could fit such description

the text doesn't talk about a sinless being from his-their birth nor someone that never done violence all his-their life long, it simply affirms that such being(s) had suffered though did nothing bad for such punishment...... he-they could have had countless flaws all his-their life but, he-they did nothing wrong to deserve such punishment.....

And that could be applicable to countless innocent people all over history

Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin

1- Most Jewish scholars equate the phrase "It pleased..." with the concept of divine kingship. All royal acts in an absolute kingdom take place at the "pleasure" of the king, regardless of whether they bring the king actual joy or not. Additionally, Jewish theologians contend that one need not be guiltless for his suffering to have meaning.

"He shall see seed, he shall prolong days.

1- The Hebrew word for “seed” is zerah, and it always refers to physical descendants:


2- Hardly a fitting description of a man who died childless in his thirty third year!!
According to the words "He shall see seed, he shall prolong days," the suffering servant is to be rewarded for his selflessness in the service of the Almighty by being blessed with children and prolongation of life. These two promises must be treated as a unit, as described in greater detail in Isaiah 65:20-23. Each promise complements the other, highlighting the ancient Hebraic ideal of viewing children and a long life as the two greatest rewards God gives to man here on earth. This is further illustrated in Job 5:25-26: "You shall know also that your seed shall be great, and your offspring as the grass of the earth. You shall come to your grave in ripe age, as a shock of corn in its season." From the manner in which the Hebrew word zer'a ("seed") is used in the Scriptures, there can be no doubt that actual physical offspring is meant here.
Generally, the Hebrew word bayn ("son") may be employed metaphorically with the meaning "disciples," but never is the term zer'a ("seed") used in this sense. For example, "And Abraham said: 'Behold to me You have given no seed (zer'a), and, see the son (ben) of my house is my heir.' And, behold, the word of the Lord came to him, saying: 'This man shall not be your heir, but he that shall come forth out of your own bowels shall be your heir'" (Genesis 15:3-4). Hence, zer'a must be taken literally, which rules out the possibility that it refers to Jesus since he had no children of his own
The second part of the promise, ". . . he shall prolong days," also cannot be applied to Jesus, who died at a young age. To apply these words, as Christian commentators do, is not only evasive but also meaningless. How can such a promise have any meaning for Jesus, who is viewed as being of divine substance and whose existence is believed by Christianity to be eternal? There would be no need for God to assure a fellow member of the Trinity eternal life.
In understanding the meaning of the phrase ". . . he shall prolong days" it should be understood that there is a difference in meaning between the concept of prolonging of days and that of gaining eternal life. The concept of a prolonged life cannot be treated as the equivalent of eternal life because in an eternal context, time of any duration is of no consequence. Consequently, one cannot speak of an eternal being as having his days prolonged: "Are Your days as the days of man, or Your years as a man's days?" (Job 10:5). God must be referred to as eternal: "The number of his years is unsearchable" (Job 36:26). He is the first, He is the last, He cannot be anything else. Prolonging the days of one who is already supposed to be eternal would make his life longer than eternity. That is an obvious impossibility. If the promise of prolonged days is applied to Jesus, he could not be of divine origin.

Now the crucial question to understand Isaiah 53,

Where the theme of Isaiah 53 came from?

Without doubt the Idea of Korban (sacrifiece) has a divine origin ,but It was corrupted ,changed from pious (act of obedience to God ) as Cain and Abel , Abraham and his son story to satanic ( Blood for sin ritual )

such satanic concept , Blood for sin ,had its wicked effects all over history , it has corrupted nations after nations all over history .... beginning from pre-historic nations passing by Ancient Egyptians, far east nations ,Scandinavians , Africans , south Americans , Hebrews , Christians ...............

as if a guilty person is convinced that an animal or human had given his life to atone him... for such person(s) ,whatever amount of preaching of the importance of being with morality he may listen to , he will continue committing sins without feeling ashamed of his deeds.....

The offerings in atonement for transgressions concept in the Old Testament is the same theme of the pagan neighbours (and all the heathen world without exception) to the Jews and the New Testament writers continued the same theme making it more and more destructive to morality ...

Just as in Judaism sins could be forgiven through the offering and the pouring out of the blood of an "unblemished" lamb (cf. Lev 4:32), so Christians believe they can be freed from sin by the blood of Jesus, the unblemished Lamb of God.

in the Old Testament some writers were aware of the negatives of such concept ,they for sure were not able to abolish the practice , cause if they tried to , the masses would be angry .....but they spoke out against those Israelites who brought forth sacrifices but did not act in accord with the precepts of the Torah.

With what shall I approach the Lord,
Do homage to God on high?
Shall I approach Him with burnt offerings,
With calves a year old?
Would the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams,
With myriads of streams of oil?
Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression,
The fruit of my body for my sins?
Man has told you what is good.
But what does the Lord require of you?
Only to do justice
And to love goodness,
And to walk humbly with your God (Micah 6:6-8).

All a man's ways seem right to him, but the LORD weighs the heart. To do what is right and just is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice. (Proverbs 21:2-3)

The Maimonides , a medieval Jewish scholar, was aware of the pagan connection with the blood for sin ritual ,taking the view that God understood that the Israelites were used to the animal sacrifices that the surrounding pagan tribes used as the primary way to commune with their gods. , it was only natural that Israelites would believe that sacrifice would be a necessary part of the relationship between God and man. . It would have been too much to have expected the Israelites to leap from pagan worship to prayer and meditation in one step. (Book III, Chapter 32. Translated by M. Friedlander, 1904, The Guide for the Perplexed, Dover Publications, 1956 edition.)

such pagan concept ( blood for sin) infected the mentality of the Bible writers ,as the more they write about it, the worse would it came to be......

in the beginning, the concept was offering animal to atone for some transgressions ,till Isaiah 53 , making the concept worse ,that a being (If the single understanding to be valid) atoned for all transgressions ....

the group which the New Testament writers belong to ,picked such concept ,and as they were aware that they can by no means convince themselves and others that Jesus could have fulfilled the actual exhaustive breadth of Messianic prophecy ,having believed the hearsay propagated by some Jews who hated Jesus (we killed Jesus the magician) ,they convinced themselves that his death was not of that normal kind , but it was sacrificial death .....that is why we find such graphic description in the contradictory ,hearsay accounts of the so called ( crucifixion-resurrection) of Jesus......



To sum up:

approaching Isaiah 53 with objective approach (neither Jewish nor christian)we begin with what Thomas Paine commented regarding the issue :

Isaiah, or at least the writer of the book that bears his name, employs the whole of this chapter, Iiii., in lamenting the sufferings of some deceased persons, of whom he speaks very pathetically. It is a monody on the death of a friend; but he mentions not the name of the person, nor gives any circumstance of him by which he can be personally known; and it is this silence, which is evidence of nothing, that Matthew has laid hold of, to put the name of Christ to it; as if the chiefs of the Jews, whose sorrows were then great, and the times they lived in big with danger, were never thinking about their own affairs, nor the fate of their own friends, but were continually running a Wild-Goose chase into futurity. To make a monody into a prophecy is an absurdity. The characters and circumstances of men, even in the different ages of the world, are so much alike, that what is said of one may with propriety be said of many; but this fitness does not make the passage into a prophecy; and none but an impostor, or a bigot, would call it so.
Isaiah, in deploring the hard fate and loss of his friend, mentions nothing of him but what the human lot of man is subject to. All the cases he states of him, his persecutions, his imprisonment, his patience in suffering, and his perseverance in principle, are all within the line of nature; they belong exclusively to none, and may with justness be said of many. But if Jesus Christ was the person the church represents him to be, that which would exclusively apply to him must be something that could not apply to any other person; something beyond the line of nature, something beyond the lot of mortal man; and there are no such expressions in this chapter, nor any other chapter in the Old Testament.
It is no exclusive description to say of a person, as is said of the person Isaiah is lamenting in this chapter, He was oppressed and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; he is brought as a Lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before his shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. This may be said of thousands of persons, who have suffered oppressions and unjust death with patience, silence, and perfect resignation.(Examination of the prophecies)

Truly . All the cases he states of him, his persecutions, his imprisonment, his patience in suffering, and his perseverance in principle, are all within the line of nature; they belong exclusively to none, and may with justness be said of many.

What about (But he was wounded through our transgressions, )?

In both cases (whether Christians or Jews interpretations) such verse is not a valid language for a prophecy or a description..

We can’t accept Jewish interpretation , as neither Jews nor any other nation whatever degree of morality get would suffer of other sins..
As one of the basic concepts regarding God is that he is just

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. (Ezekiel 18:20)


We can’t accept the Christian interpretation(which makes less sense than the Jewish one) as well , cause of

1-the point we have highlighted , where Isaiah 53 idea came from(paganism) and where it goes (the mind of the New testament writers),

2- some of the description can’t be applicable to Jesus story (according to the NT)And that makes more sense to the Jewish interpretation

3-the only thing in the description which Christian would claim to be exclusive to Jesus (wounded through our transgressions) is a not a proper language to make a prophecy ,as it is something can never be verified by the naked eyes ,exactly just as ,imagine finding a text about Osiris claiming that by his murder he atoned for the ancient Egyptians sins !!!
How on earth one could ever verify the truth of such claim?!!!

The best Christians could offer to support such (impossible to be verified ,common in the pagan mythology) description ,is the contradictory accounts of ( the crucifixion-resurrection) which makes their position weaker and weaker…

Why shouldn’t we accept the contradictory accounts of ( the crucifixion-resurrection) ?
Because

The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going. Proverbs 14:15



In a word , Isaiah 53 is a lie been inspired by ancient lie and will inspire another future lie…..


more posts related to the topic

http://www.islamicboard.com/discover...s-islam-4.html

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...tml#post979966

peace for all

Well, we could go on and on regarding this passage, but I'm just going to let you upfront know that you won't convince me that this passage doesn't relate to Jesus and what he would ultimately end up doing on the cross, not after all that I have experienced in the Lord and the things he has delivered me from.

I've already explained that only the Messianic Jews really understand the Torah, because God has placed a veil over the eyes of most Jews, so that we all might start out in unbelief, and until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in:

'What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election (a remnant) hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.'

Romans 11: 7-8.

Now let's address this idea that Jesus doesn't save sinners from their sins.

'The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.' St. John 1: 29.

Let's look at a few more scriptures affirming this:

'Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whomsoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.


And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.

If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.' John 8: 34-36. This is talking about freedom from sin, no matter what your background is.

'Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.' II Corinthians 5: 17. This is not just referencing your mindset, but your lifestyle, you completely throwing off the sinful man and putting on the righteousness of God. It also references the new birth.

'What shall we say then? Shall we contine in sin, that grace may abound?

God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?' Romans 6: 1-2.

'All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.

We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not, but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.' 1 John 5: 17-20.

So having an understanding of where I've been and what God has delivered me from, no, I don't buy it that Isaiah 53 doesn't relate to Christ.

[Re.TiReD]

stop spamming!

[mkh4JC]

stop spamming!

Whose spamming?

[Grace Seeker]

Why Matthew and the other writers misquoted the Old Testament?

I'm going have to bow out of this discussion because I just don't have time to invest into reading all that Imam and Fedos are producing and then try to make a thoughtful response to it all. So, I'll leave you both with a final thought. Are the misquotes that are being cited truly misquotes at all? I don't know because I didn't take the time to research them. I know that there are a few misquotes of the OT in the NT. But the vast majority that at first appear this way are actually good quotes of the LXX. They just appear to be misquotes because most English OT translations are based on translations made from the Hebrew Masoretic texts. But at the time of the writing of the NT, the text that the NT authors would have been most familiar with was not a Hebrew text of the Tanakh at all, but the Greek LXX. When comparing what many people think are in exact quotations of the OT found in the NT, most of them turn out to actually be fairly good renderings of the LXX versions.

Again, whether that is true with the passages under discussion in this thread I didn't check out, but maybe one of you who is going to remain engaged in the thread might do that to see what you learn.

[Imam]

Now let's address this idea that Jesus doesn't save sinners from their sins.

As I said before, the burden of proofs lies on him who alleges ,

we have some writers thought that some old testament passage predicted both the crucification and the blood atonement


in other words the passage is said to get 2 kinds of fulfillments:

1- physical fulfillment (crucification,resurrection).

2- so called spiritual fulfillment (unseen act of atonement).



yes ,the writers you quoted claim that jesus spiritually fulfilled it

such as
'The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.' St. John 1: 29.

But How could one trust their claims?

Are they trustworthy?

What If they fail to prove the physical fulfillment,would we trust them in unseen,spiritual fulfillment then?

The Christian fundamentalist Gleason Archer affirmed such logical issue:

if the biblical record can be proved fallible in areas of fact that can be verified, then it is hardly to be trusted in areas where it cannot be tested. As a witness for God, the Bible would be discredited as untrustworthy. What solid truth it may contain would be left as a matter of mere conjecture, subject to the intuition or canons of likelihood of each individual. An attitude of sentimental attachment to traditional religion may incline one person to accept nearly all the substantive teachings of Scripture as probably true. But someone else with equal justification may pick and chose whatever teachings in the Bible happen to appeal to him and lay equal claim to legitimacy. One opinion is as good as another. All things are possible, but nothing is certain if indeed the Bible contains mistakes or errors of any kind

While we can't verify the so called spiritual act of atonement ,we certainly could easily verify the so called physical fulfillment (crucifiction,resurrection) through the incredibly defective accounts of such writers:

1- discrepancies among the crucifiction,resurrection accounts:

small sample:

What time did the women visit the tomb?

John: "when it was yet dark" (20:1)
Mark: "when the sun had risen"

Was the tomb open when they arrived?

Matthew: No (28:2)
John: Yes (20:1)


When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had been resurrected?

Matthew: Yes (28:7-8)
John: No (20:2)

2- failed prophecies:


A-

For as Jonas was three days and three night in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Matthew 12:38-40).

The prophecy failed

Jesus is said to have died Friday and risen On the first day of the week, early in the morning, while it was still dark

John 13:38 Jesus said to Peter, "The cock shall not crow, till thou hast denied me thrice."

The prophecy failed
Mark 14:66-68, of course, reveals that the cock actually crowed after the first denial, not the third.

Matthew 26:14-15 states that Judas Iscariot was paid thirty pieces of silver by the Jewish priests as payment for his betrayal. Matthew 27:9-10 claims that this is done to fulfill a prophecy of Jeremiah

(Then that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled, saying, "And they took the thirty pieces of silver for the price of the one whose price had been set by the sons of Israel; and they gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord directed me."

That is false


the quoted verse appears nowhere in the book of Jeremiah. There is a verse which is similar in the book of Zechariah, but there the prophet Zechariah is speaking about himself and no betrayal is involved.




fulfillment of nonprophecy in Luke 24:46.

New Testament writers claimed that the resurrection of the Messiah on the third day had been predicted in the scriptures.
Luke 24:46."Thus it is written and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day."
Try as they may, however, bibliolaters cannot produce an Old Testament passage that made this alleged third-day prediction. It simply doesn't exist.


3- The forgery in the end of the resurrection account of Gospel of Mark

Jesus does rise from the dead in Mark’s Gospel. The women go to the tomb, the tomb is empty and there is a man there who tells them that Jesus has been raised from the dead and that they are to go tell the disciples that this has happened. But then the Gospel ends in Codex Sinaiticus and other manuscripts by saying the women fled from the tomb and didn’t say anything to anyone because they were afraid, period. That where the Gospel ends. So nobody finds out about it, the disciples don’t learn about it, the disciples never see Jesus after the resurrection, that’s the end of the story. But later scribes couldn’t handle this abrupt ending and they added the 12 verses people find in the King James Bible or other Bibles in which Jesus does appear to his disciples.

In light of all such serious problems of the writers' accounts

It doesn't take a great deal of wisdom to see that if the writers not to be trusted in the easy to be verified (so called physical fulfillment) would be also untrustworthy of their claims of (the so called spiritual fulfillment)

[/QUOTE]

I know that there are a few misquotes of the OT in the NTBut the vast majority that at first appear this way are actually good quotes of the LXX.

for example?


peace for all

[mkh4JC]

As I said before, the burden of proofs lies on him who alleges ,

we have some writers thought that some old testament passage predicted both the crucification and the blood atonement


in other words the passage is said to get 2 kinds of fulfillments:

1- physical fulfillment (crucification,resurrection).

2- so called spiritual fulfillment (unseen act of atonement).



yes ,the writers you quoted claim that jesus spiritually fulfilled it

such as
'The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.' St. John 1: 29.

But How could one trust their claims?

Are they trustworthy?

What If they fail to prove the physical fulfillment,would we trust them in unseen,spiritual fulfillment then?

The Christian fundamentalist Gleason Archer affirmed such logical issue:



While we can't verify the so called spiritual act of atonement ,we certainly could easily verify the so called physical fulfillment (crucifiction,resurrection) through the incredibly defective accounts of such writers:

1- discrepancies among the crucifiction,resurrection accounts:

small sample:


Was the tomb open when they arrived?

Matthew: No (28:2)
John: Yes (20:1)

Well, here's what I found:

First, let me advance a passage from Dr. Robert Price's work Beyond Born Again, who is quite vocal in his insistence that the accounts cannot be harmonized (and that harmonization attempts are evidence AGAINST the evangelical position). [I am going to insert [letter marks] in the quote to facilitate my comments.] From his Chapter 6:

"The most embarrassing divergence between the narratives revolves around the spectacular scene in Matthew. [A] In this version, the women are treated to the sight of a luminous angel flying down, causing an earthquake, and heaving the stone away from the empty tomb, and all this in full view of posted guards! [B] The problem is that the other evangelists somehow seem to have forgotten to mention the guards and the whole sequence of events! Certainly if all this had really taken place, the women could not help but have included it in every telling of their story, and no gospel writer could have failed to use these facts had he known them. [C, D] In a gospel otherwise known for midrashic expansion (e.g., the addition of Peter walking on the water), it would not seem improbable that we have an unhistorical addition here. "[E]

"The reader has probably seen some attempts to harmonize some of the discrepancies between the gospel accounts. The precarious and contrived nature of the result should make anyone hesitant to base much on it. [F] But let us suppose these texts could all be harmonized. The value of the accounts as evidence for the resurrection would still be greatly lessened. The very admission of the need to harmonize is an admission that the burden of proof is on the narratives, not on those who doubt them. What harmonizing shows is that despite appearances, the texts still might be true. This is a different thing than saying that the texts as they stand probably are true, that the burden of proof is on the person who would overturn this supposedly unambiguous evidence for the resurrection. Conservative apologists often ignore all the discrepancies, or after they have harmonized them, they continue to pretend the texts constitute unambiguously positive evidence." [G]

Now let me make a few comments about this passage.


[A]: Just a minor note--Dr. Price here considers this the WORST case of divergence. It would be "plausible" then, to suppose that if this situation is resolvable 'plausibly', then we might have a higher confidence that other cases might be resolvable as well.


[B]: It is critical to our study to recognize what Dr. Price does in this sentence. He makes an exegetical decision, and without defending it against evangelical alternatives (in a book avowed designed to appeal to such), uses it as premise in his argument. Let's see this in slow motion...

The passage that he refers to is Matthew 28.1ff:

After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb. 2 There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 4 The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men. 5 The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6 He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples: `He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.' Now I have told you." 8 So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples.
What Dr. Price has assumed without argument is the chronological sequence that appears in the English translation (e.g. women-go-to-tomb, followed by angel-earthquake, followed by stone-movement, followed by guards-go-comatose, followed by angel-announcement to the women.)

This interpretation depends on the Greek word (ginomai) rendered "There was..." in verse two. The verb is the standard one rendered "at it came to pass..." or "it came to be". The issue is that it is in the aorist tense--a rather undifferentiated verbal structure that pushes attention away from itself. The verb is generally NOT USED by itself to make a point of chronological sequence; the gospel writers depend on other additional words to make sequence clear (as we would use constructions like "and then.." or "subsequently..." or "after this"). The aorist makes NO STATEMENT whatsoever about itself. Indeed, biblical writers use series of aorists as the narrative skeleton, upon which to throw a present tense or future tense to 'stand out' and get our attention. The aorist is simply the "room in which" the events occur.


So, the aorist can be translated "was" and can ALSO be translated by an English pluperfect ("had been"). For example, aorists occur in main clauses (as here) in Matthew 14.3, Mark 8.14, and Lk 8.27b and the NIV reflects this temporal nuance:

At that time Herod the tetrarch heard the reports about Jesus, 2 and he said to his attendants, "This is John the Baptist; he has risen from the dead! That is why miraculous powers are at work in him." 3 Now Herod had arrested (aorist tense) John and bound him and put him in prison because of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife, (Matt 14.1-3; Note that verse 3--the aorist--is used to explain background and historically PRIOR material.)

Then he left them, got back into the boat and crossed to the other side. 14 The disciples had forgotten (aorist tense) to bring bread, except for one loaf they had with them in the boat. 15 "Be careful," Jesus warned them. (Mark 8.13-15; the aorist in vs. 14 is used to explain background and historically PRIOR material.)


When Jesus stepped ashore, he was met by a demon-possessed man from the town. For a long time this man had not worn (aorist) clothes or lived in a house, but had lived in the tombs. 28 When he saw Jesus, he cried out and fell at his feet, (Luke 8.27f; the aorist in vs. 27 is used to explain background and historically PRIOR material.)

What this means is that there is an inherent ambiguity in the Greek construction here. Dr. Price has made an exegetical decision (on unknown grounds) and IT IS HIS DECISION that generates the "most embarrassing divergence". There literally IS no "divergence" or "convergence" until the exegetical decision is made--[hmmm...would this be called a "Schroedinger Contradiction"?...sorry, ;>)]

Wenham, on the other hand, takes this ambiguity under study, asking questions about historical possibility and normal usage (EE:78):

"We have to remember that first century writers had to work without the help of such modern aids as parenthesising brackets, and that, since Greeks care little about relative time, the use of the pluperfect tense was much less favoured by them than by us. Often in the New Testament the aorist tense needs to be rendered by an English pluperfect. So Matthew 28:2 could be inserted in brackets and translated with no impropriety:
(And behold there had been a great earthquake. For an angel of the Lord had descended from heaven, and had come and rolled back the stone, and sat upon it. His appearance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow. And for fear of him the guards had trembled and become like dead men.)
"Such a translation, however, exaggerates the element of relative time in a manner alien to the Greek (or, for that matter, Semitic) mind. W.E. Brown, commenting on Matthew's usage, here makes some interesting remarks about the methods of ancient historiography:
"The great historians of the nineteenth century learned to solve their problems by keeping to a chronological order. Such a practice is strictly speaking impossible unless the narration is confined to one person or to one locality .... Earlier chroniclers had tackled the difficulty in two ways. Sometimes they incorporated in a single story a number of actions and speeches which had a common theme, not indicating at all the time of the occurrence. Sometimes they jumped back and forward between two or more parallel sequences of events, leaving it to the reader to understand that each item is as it were a flash on a cinema screen."
Wenham then applies this "plausible" reconstruction (based on other, known usages and "control data") to the sequence in the passage and comes out here (EE:78):

"We may thus conclude that the earthquake took place before the arrival of any women and that the terrified guards had already left by the time they arrived. It was presumably a recurrence of the earth tremors which had caused the rending of the massive curtain which divided the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies at the time of the crucifixion. That the geological structure is conducive to violent shocks at this point has been brought home vividly to the many visitors who have seen the Church of the Holy Sepulchre shored up because of seismic damage."
Wenham exhibits here the standard practices of historical study--he has integrating narrative, yielding a plausible reconstruction of sequence, argued from (1) grammatical usage; (2) background geological data; and (3) related biblical data (e.g. he used the apostolic statement that "He is risen" was FIRST announced to believers, as evidence that the guards were NOT there at the time the angels announced it to the women--p. 77). His exegesis does not support a position of "most embarrassing divergence."

When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had been resurrected?

Matthew: Yes (28:7-8)
John: No (20:2)

And again:

[Wenham is convinced that MaryM was NOT in the group described in Luke--which Till decides "who would have included Mary Magdalene." I am convinced by Wenham that MaryM was in route back to the apostles when this occurred, and hence, had not heard the pronouncement. She had seen the open tomb, had assumed a theft, and ran away immediately to report this to the apostles--she would not have gone into the tomb with the other women at that time. Even her inclusion in the list of Luke 24.9-11 could be understood as a common telescoping narrative--summarizing two events in one. Murray Harris--cited below--is also in basic agreement with this absense of MaryM.]


But let's assume for the moment that she HAD heard the 'He is risen'--a la Archer. Is it "plausible" that she could have been so distraught and confused as to not 'register' the words of the angels--while even being able to remember His earlier predictions? Mr. Till obviously seems convinced that it was psychologically impossible for MaryM to have been this confused or unable to think through the implications and meaning of the angel's words.


But let's think about this--historically. We know that often the disciples' heard Jesus' direct teaching, but did not 'understand' His words due to emotional issues (cf. : Mark 9:30: They left that place and passed through Galilee. Jesus did not want anyone to know where they were, 31 because he was teaching his disciples. He said to them, "The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men. They will kill him, and after three days he will rise." 32 But they did not understand what he meant and were afraid to ask him about it......cf. John 20.8: Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed. 9 (They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.)--notice that they had a mixture of belief and non-understanding.....Mark 6.51: Then he climbed into the boat with them, and the wind died down. They were completely amazed, 52 for they had not understood about the loaves; their hearts were hardened.; and especially Matt 28.16-17: Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshipped him; but some doubted.--they ALL worshipped but some mingled this worship of a Risen Christ with doubt?!!!, )


Remember also that we are not always given snapshots into the inner lives of all the characters. Sometimes the narrator tells us they responded in fear, sometimes in joy, sometimes with both, sometimes with a mixture of incongruent attitudes.


I am NOT arguing that Mr. Till is wrong here (I believe he is, but that is a separate issue). Rather, I am arguing that his assumptions about psychological integration--that people under extreme stress cannot hold incongruous beliefs and act in inconsistent ways and doubt the very messages of God--are just too simplistic and lack adequate correspondence to the real world of human psychology. And correspondingly, that his assessment of Archer's position as being 'thin' and 'too transparent' and 'far-fetched' and 'undeserving of serious comment', is correspondingly based on inadequate criteria.

I have personally experienced this, when I was in sin, twice actually. I'll try to explain the second time. When I was in sin I was trying to take advantage of someone sexually, they were asleep, and while this was happening it was like the Lord closed up my understanding, and the results of that was that I couldn't enjoy it. So I didn't go all the way.

Now, this happened way back in the summer of 2002, and after it happened I never understood it. It wasn't until I accepted Christ (August 1st of 2002) and I then reflected on what happened that I understood that God had closed up my understanding.

Also, my father has experienced the exact same thing, at least he told me about it once. There was this gentlemen at church and he was trying to get my father to put in an application at a place of employ, and whenever he would do so my father wouldn't respond, like he wasn't interested. Then the gentlemen told my father that it was too late to apply for the job, and my father replied in shock, having realized that God closed up his understanding, because he didn't want him working at that place. It turns out the job that my father eventually ended up getting was run and owned by a (and you can believe or disbelieve either account if you wish, but I am telling the truth) a Jewish man whom he had the opportunity to witness to.

2- failed prophecies:


A-

For as Jonas was three days and three night in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Matthew 12:38-40).

The prophecy failed

This is hardly a failed prophecy. First let's examine a few scriptures:

'Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.' Ephesians 4: 9-10.


'And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptously every day: And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.

And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.

Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.' Luke 16: 19-31.

Last few scriptures is here and then I'll make my point: 'Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.' Ephesians 4: 8

And here: 'And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.' Matthew 27: 52-53.

So then hell as we know it from the Christian perspective is actually at this moment in time in the center of the Earth. But before Jesus died to save man from his sins, paradise was also in the center of the earth. There was between the two areas a great gulf fixed, so that no man could travel from here to there. When Jesus ascended, he delivered those who were in the center of the Earth who were the Lord's people out of the Earth. Some of them went on to be with the Lord in the third heaven (where God is), and some of them walked among men. Hope that answers and clears up some confusion.

John 13:38 Jesus said to Peter, "The cock shall not crow, till thou hast denied me thrice."

The prophecy failed
Mark 14:66-68, of course, reveals that the cock actually crowed after the first denial, not the third.

Jesus said, 'Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice.'

New Testament writers claimed that the resurrection of the Messiah on the third day had been predicted in the scriptures.
Luke 24:46."Thus it is written and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day."
Try as they may, however, bibliolaters cannot produce an Old Testament passage that made this alleged third-day prediction. It simply doesn't exist.

I think Isaiah 53 covers this. If that is a prophecy of the Messiah (and it is) it foretells of a suffering servant. Rising the third day from the dead is not there, but there is a Pslam which says this:

'For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.' Psalms 16: 10. Thus the resurrection (maybe not rise the third day, but still) is clearly in the Old Testament, and it most definitely applies to the Messiah.

In light of all such serious problems of the writers' accounts

It doesn't take a great deal of wisdom to see that if the writers not to be trusted in the easy to be verified (so called physical fulfillment) would be also untrustworthy of their claims of (the so called spiritual fulfillment)

Well, I haven't answered everything admittedly, but I'm certain I've answered some critical issues. Maybe Graceseeker or Keltoi will chime in with some of the other areas of concern. Oh, and this is the site where I got the quoted information: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/ordorise.html

[Imam]

[QUOTE=Fedos;1065615]Well, here's what I found:

Is it "plausible" that she could have been so distraught and confused as to not 'register' the words of the angels--while even being able to remember His earlier predictions? Mr. Till obviously seems convinced that it was psychologically impossible for MaryM to have been this confused or unable to think through the implications and meaning of the angel's words.

surely, Mr.Farrell till is right

It is impossible for MaryM to have been this confused or unable to think through the implications and meaning of the angel's words.

you ask why?

Cause Mary Magdalina had been given the message of the resurrection at least twice before she would understand it.

The first message from the angel(s):


Luke 24
5and as the women were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, "Why do you seek the living One among the dead?

6"He is not here, but He has risen Remember how He spoke to you while He was still in Galilee,

7saying that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again."

8And they remembered His words,


The same message is repeated again face to face by Jesus himself:


7"Go quickly and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead; and behold, He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see Him; behold, I have told you."

8And they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy and ran to report it to His disciples.

9 then lo, Jesus met them, saying, `Hail!' and they having come near, laid hold of his feet, and did bow to him.

10Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid; go and take word to My brethren to leave or Galilee, and there they will see Me."





So Mary Magdalena

1-had seen angels at the tomb (as Matthew, Mark, and Luke claimed), who had reminded her of Jesus's promise to rise again on the third day,

2-she had "remembered his words" after the angels had jogged her memory

3-she was ordered by the angels to Go quickly and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead

4-she was filled with joy by the good news of the angels (Matthew 28:8)

5-she even met Jesus face to face and toutched his feet and been told again the same message ......(Matthew 28:9)


6-she was ordered again by the Jesus to Go and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead


In spite of all that we are told by some Christian fundamentalists that she didn't get the message and didn't know that Jesus been resurrected!!!!!!!

We know that often the disciples' heard Jesus' direct teaching, but did not 'understand' His words due to emotional issues
they ALL worshipped but some mingled this worship of a Risen Christ with doubt?
.

so you would suggest Mary M as misunderstood the words or understood but just had doubts?


in both cases the text doesn't help such dodge


Did Mary understand the words ?

If she was filled with joy by the good news of the angels as (Matthew 28:8) tells ,then without any resonable doubt she not only understood the words but believed it as well..........


or you want to say she was filled with joy for something she didn't understand ??!!!!

Had she doubt of the angels message?

well, what is the best cure for someone doubted a resurrection of a person?


1-to see him

2-to talk to him

3-to hold him


and as they were going to tell to his disciples, then lo, Jesus met them, saying, `Hail!' and they having come near, laid hold of his feet, and did bow to him.

10Then saith Jesus to them, `Fear ye not, go away, tell to my brethren that they may go away to Galilee, and there they shall see me.'


So Again the big question:

If Mary Magdalene had been told by an angel that Jesus had risen and if she had even seen Jesus and touched him after leaving the tomb, why did she go tell Peter that the body of Jesus had been stolen?




to be continued



peace

[Imam]

[QUOTE=Fedos;1065615]Well, here's what I found:

Is it "plausible" that she could have been so distraught and confused as to not 'register' the words of the angels--while even being able to remember His earlier predictions? Mr. Till obviously seems convinced that it was psychologically impossible for MaryM to have been this confused or unable to think through the implications and meaning of the angel's words.

surely, Mr.Farrell till is right

It is impossible for MaryM to have been this confused or unable to think through the implications and meaning of the angel's words.

you ask why?

Cause Mary Magdalina had been given the message of the resurrection at least twice before she would understand it.

The first message from the angel(s):


Luke 24
5and as the women were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, "Why do you seek the living One among the dead?

6"He is not here, but He has risen Remember how He spoke to you while He was still in Galilee,

7saying that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again."

8And they remembered His words,


The same message is repeated again face to face by Jesus himself:


7"Go quickly and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead; and behold, He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see Him; behold, I have told you."

8And they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy and ran to report it to His disciples.

9 then lo, Jesus met them, saying, `Hail!' and they having come near, laid hold of his feet, and did bow to him.

10Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid; go and take word to My brethren to leave or Galilee, and there they will see Me."





So Mary Magdalena

1-had seen angels at the tomb (as Matthew, Mark, and Luke claimed), who had reminded her of Jesus's promise to rise again on the third day,

2-she had "remembered his words" after the angels had jogged her memory

3-she was ordered by the angels to Go quickly and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead

4-she was filled with joy by the good news of the angels (Matthew 28:8)

5-she even met Jesus face to face and toutched his feet and been told again the same message ......(Matthew 28:9)


6-she was ordered again by the Jesus to Go and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead


In spite of all that we are told by some Christian fundamentalists that she didn't get the message and didn't know that Jesus been resurrected!!!!!!!

We know that often the disciples' heard Jesus' direct teaching, but did not 'understand' His words due to emotional issues
they ALL worshipped but some mingled this worship of a Risen Christ with doubt?
.

so you would suggest Mary M as misunderstood the words or understood but just had doubts?


in both cases the text doesn't help such dodge


Did Mary understand the words ?

If she was filled with joy by the good news of the angels as (Matthew 28:8) tells ,then without any resonable doubt she not only understood the words but believed it as well..........


or you want to say she was filled with joy for something she didn't understand ??!!!!

Had she doubt of the angels message?

well, what is the best cure for someone doubted a resurrection of a person?


1-to see him

2-to talk to him

3-to hold him


and as they were going to tell to his disciples, then lo, Jesus met them, saying, `Hail!' and they having come near, laid hold of his feet, and did bow to him.

10Then saith Jesus to them, `Fear ye not, go away, tell to my brethren that they may go away to Galilee, and there they shall see me.'


So Again the big question:

If Mary Magdalene had been told by an angel that Jesus had risen and if she had even seen Jesus and touched him after leaving the tomb, why did she go tell Peter that the body of Jesus had been stolen?




to be continued



peace

[mkh4JC]

surely, Mr.Farrell till is right

It is impossible for MaryM to have been this confused or unable to think through the implications and meaning of the angel's words.

you ask why?

Cause Mary Magdalina had been given the message of the resurrection at least twice before she would understand it.

The first message from the angel(s):


Luke 24
5and as the women were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, "Why do you seek the living One among the dead?

6"He is not here, but He has risen Remember how He spoke to you while He was still in Galilee,

7saying that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again."

8And they remembered His words,


The same message is repeated again face to face by Jesus himself:


7"Go quickly and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead; and behold, He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see Him; behold, I have told you."

8And they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy and ran to report it to His disciples.

9 then lo, Jesus met them, saying, `Hail!' and they having come near, laid hold of his feet, and did bow to him.

10Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid; go and take word to My brethren to leave or Galilee, and there they will see Me."





So Mary Magdalena

1-had seen angels at the tomb (as Matthew, Mark, and Luke claimed), who had reminded her of Jesus's promise to rise again on the third day,

2-she had "remembered his words" after the angels had jogged her memory

3-she was ordered by the angels to Go quickly and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead

4-she was filled with joy by the good news of the angels (Matthew 28:8)

5-she even met Jesus face to face and toutched his feet and been told again the same message ......(Matthew 28:9)


6-she was ordered again by the Jesus to Go and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead


In spite of all that we are told by some Christian fundamentalists that she didn't get the message and didn't know that Jesus been resurrected!!!!!!!





so you would suggest Mary M as misunderstood the words or understood but just had doubts?


in both cases the text doesn't help such dodge


Did Mary understand the words ?

If she was filled with joy by the good news of the angels as (Matthew 28:8) tells ,then without any resonable doubt she not only understood the words but believed it as well..........


or you want to say she was filled with joy for something she didn't understand ??!!!!

Had she doubt of the angels message?

well, what is the best cure for someone doubted a resurrection of a person?


1-to see him

2-to talk to him

3-to hold him


and as they were going to tell to his disciples, then lo, Jesus met them, saying, `Hail!' and they having come near, laid hold of his feet, and did bow to him.

10Then saith Jesus to them, `Fear ye not, go away, tell to my brethren that they may go away to Galilee, and there they shall see me.'


So Again the big question:

If Mary Magdalene had been told by an angel that Jesus had risen and if she had even seen Jesus and touched him after leaving the tomb, why did she go tell Peter that the body of Jesus had been stolen?




to be continued



peace

Well, that was just an argument that the gentlemen on Christian-thinktank used. I perhaps should have quoted more from the site than I did, to further elaborate. In essence I shouldn't have presented his argument like that because that's not what he really believes, and he even says as much in my quote. Here's more:

After the actual resurrection had taken place, but before dawn, an earthquake occurred, an angel rolled away the stone from the entrance of the tomb, and the guards trembled and fled (Matt. 28:2-4).
As Sunday morning was dawning, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and Salome approached the tomb, intending to anoint Jesus with the perfumed oil brought by other women who evidently set out later (see #7) . To their amazement they found the stone rolled away (Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:1-4; John 20:1).
One or more of the women entered the tomb and announced that the body was not there (an inference from John 20:2, where Mary Magdalene does not simply say, "The stone has been taken away").
Mary Magdalene immediately returned to tell Peter and John that the body had been removed (John 20:2).
Mary (the mother of James and Joses) and Salome saw an angel ( = "a young man" in Mark) inside the tomb who announced the resurrection and directed the women to tell the disciples that Jesus would meet them in Galilee (Matt. 28:5-7; Mark 16:5-7).
These two women returned to the city without greeting anyone on the way, for their holy awe rendered them temporarily speechless (Matt.28:8; Mark 16:8).
Certain women from Galilee, along with Joanna (cf. Luke 8: 3), arrived at the tomb, carrying perfumed oil to anoint the body of Jesus. They met two "men" (= "angels"; cf. Luke 24:4, 23) and then returned to report the angels' message of the resurrection "to the Eleven and to all the rest" (Luke 24: 1-9,22-23) who had evidently now gathered together (c£ Matt.26: 56) .
Meanwhile, informed by Mary Magdalene, Peter and John (and others?; Luke 24:24) ran to the tomb (without meeting Mary and Salome), observed the grave-clothes, and returned home (John 20:3-10; and Luke 24: 12, if this is the correct textual reading).
Mary Magdalene followed Peter and John to the tomb, saw two angels inside, and then met Jesus (John 20: 11-17; cf Mark 16:9).
Mary Magdalene returned to inform the disciples that Jesus had risen (John 20:18; c£ Mark 16:10-11).
Mary (the mother of James and Joses) and Salome met Jesus and were directed to tell his brethren to go to Galilee (Matt. 28:9-10).
The disciples had now had reports concerning the empty tomb or the resurrection from three sources (viz., Mary Magdalene, Joanna and the women from Galilee, Mary [and Salome]), but they refused to believe these reports (Luke 24:10-11; cf. Mark 16:11).
During the afternoon Jesus appeared to two disciples on the way to Emmaus. They then returned to Jerusalem to report the appearance to the Eleven and others (Luke 24:13-35; c£ Mark 16:12-13).
Jesus appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34; 1 Cor. 15 :5).
That evening Jesus appeared to the Eleven and others (Luke 24:33), Thomas being absent (Luke 24:36-43; John 20:19-23; 1 Cor. 15:5; cf Mark 16:14).
One week later Jesus appeared to the Eleven, Thomas being present (John 20:26-29) .
Seven disciples had an encounter with Jesus by the Sea of Tiberias in Galilee (John 21: 1-22).
The Eleven met Jesus on a mountain in Galilee (Matt. 28:16-20; cf Mark 16:15-18).
Jesus appeared to more than five hundred people (Luke 24:44-49; 1 Cor. 15:6).
He appeared to James (1 Cor. 15 :7) .
Immediately before his ascension, Jesus appeared to the Eleven near Bethany (Luke 24:50-52; Acts 1:6-11; 1 Cor. 15:7; cf Mark 16: 19-20).
(Murray Harris, TCQ:107ff)





Craig Blomberg:
"Finally, it is remarkable to observe how often the alleged contradictions among the gospels are cited without a discussion of the many proposed solutions which can fit them together in a very plausible and natural manner. John Wenham has quite recently devoted an entire book to a harmonization of the accounts and few of his proposals are entirely new. There is scarcely room to summarize all his main points, but in the case of the sample 'contradictions' mentioned above, one can offer the following brief replies: (a) angels generally appear in Scripture as men, and if one of the two were the primary spokesman, it would not be surprising if sometimes only he were mentioned; (b) it is likely that Jesus appeared to the eleven in Jerusalem, then later in Galilee when they had gone home after the Passover, and then once again in Jerusalem upon their return in preparation for the feast of Pentecost; (c) if Salome is both the 'mother of James and John' and the sister of Mary, Jesus' mother, there is no irreconcil- able problem with the lists of women; and (d) it is not unfair to describe the world as still rather dark at the first glimpse of morning daylight. The apparent discord among the gospels can be alleviated, but it must be admitted that any reconstruction of the events is speculative. "

Feel free to comment on some other issues that you wanted to raise.

[Imam]

Well, before the gentelman of christianthinktank try to use his multiple visits theory,he should :



first:

pay attention to Mark 16


2 And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they [Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome] went to the tomb.


and as

in John 20 is a talk about a visit while it was still dark

if there had been more than one visit, one in the dark and another when the sun had risen ,then logically the first would be while it was still dark

what happened according to the writer in the first visit?


Mary (and other women if you wish) found the stone rolled away


If she , while in the dark,found the stone rolled away and jesus not there , why then she and the other women had been saying to one another, "Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance to the tomb when the sun had risen ?"?



second:

One or more of the women entered the tomb and announced that the body was not there,Mary Magdalene immediately returned to tell Peter and John that the body had been removed (John 20:2).

The writer tries to convince the readers that Mary Magdalena had returned to tell Peter and John that the body had been removed before she got the message that Jesus been resurrected.... unfortunately , the text can't help him ....

Matthew,Mark,Luke said that Mary Magdalene did hear the angel's resurrection message before going anywhere:.


Mark 16

1And the sabbath having past, Mary the Magdalene, and Mary of James, and Salome, bought spices, that having come, they may anoint him, 2and early in the morning of the first of the sabbaths, they come unto the sepulchre, at the rising of the sun, 3and they said among themselves, `Who shall roll away for us the stone out of the door of the sepulchre?' 4And having looked, they see that the stone hath been rolled away -- for it was very great, 5and having entered into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right hand, arrayed in a long white robe, and they were amazed. 6And he saith to them, `Be not amazed, ye seek Jesus the Nazarene, the crucified: he did rise -- he is not here; lo, the place where they laid him! 7and go, say to his disciples, and Peter, that he doth go before you to Galilee; there ye shall see him, as he said to you.'


Matthew 28

1And on the eve of the sabbaths, at the dawn, toward the first of the sabbaths, came Mary the Magdalene, and the other Mary, to see the sepulchre, 2and lo, there came a great earthquake, for a messenger of the Lord, having come down out of heaven, having come, did roll away the stone from the door, and was sitting upon it, 3and his countenance was as lightning, and his clothing white as snow, 4and from the fear of him did the keepers shake, and they became as dead men. 5And the messenger answering said to the women (Mary the Magdalene, and the other Mary ) , `Fear not ye, for I have known that Jesus, who hath been crucified, ye seek; 6he is not here, for he rose, as he said; come, see the place where the Lord was lying; 7and having gone quickly, say ye to his disciples, that he rose from the dead; and lo, he doth go before you to Galilee, there ye shall see him; lo, I have told you.' 8And having gone forth quickly from the tomb, with fear and great joy, they ran to tell to his disciples;



[QUOTE=Fedos;1065615]Well, here's what I found:

The verb is generally NOT USED by itself to make a point of chronological sequence;

Farrell till refuted that

this text was written in chronological sequence

28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. 2 And, behold, there had been a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord had descended from heaven, and had come and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.

After all, it isn't as if Matthew didn't at times do use the perfect tense to indicate the earlier of two or more actions. Consider the following example in which I have emphasized in bold print the first or earliest action and underlined the actions that happened after the first.
Matthew 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife; 25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
Joseph did... and took unto him his wife, but before Joseph did this, the angel had bidden him to do so; hence, the first of the actions in terms of when the actions occurred was properly stated in past perfect tense. Likewise, Joseph "knew" his wife, but he did not "know" her until she had brought forth her firstborn son. The bringing forth of the son had happened before Joseph "knew" Mary; hence, the bringing forth was stated in past perfect form.
Here are more examples that show that Matthew knew how to use the perfect tense to show what events had happened first. Notice that the actions in bold print always happened before the underlined actions.
Matthew 2:1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, 2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. 3 When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. 4 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.
Herod was troubled, but he was not troubled until he had heard "these things." He demanded of the chief priests where Christ should be born, but he did not demand this of them until he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes together. This is a very simple principle of verb tenses. If there are two or more past actions in a passage, whichever action happened first should be stated in the past perfect. Matthew obviously understood that principle as I will show by quoting without comment other examples in his gospel.
Matthew 2:7 Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, inquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.... 9 When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.... 11 And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.
Matthew 4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. 2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungered.
Matthew 4:12 Now when Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison, he departed into Galilee....
Matthew 7:28 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine....
Matthew 10:1 And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.

Matthew 11:1 And it came to pass, when Jesus had made an end of commanding his twelve disciples, he departed thence to teach and to preach in their cities. 2 Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples, 3 And said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?

I could quote other examples, but these are sufficient to show that "Matthew" understood how to use proper verb tenses to show which actions had occurred first in a narrative. The fact that he did not use this method in 28:2 to indicate that the earthquake had already happened before the women arrived at the tomb is sufficient to show that Turkel's assertion that the "insertion" about the earthquake was "clearly dischronologized" is without merit, but there is even more textual evidence that "Matthew" did not intend readers to understand that the earthquake had happened before the women arrived at the tomb.

That evidence is what I will call the idou factor. Anyone who has done much reading at all in the Bible will know that behold was frequently used in the narration of events. The word in Greek was idou, a demonstrative particle [a short, indeclinable part of speech] for which there is no exact equivalent in English, although it was usually translated with behold or lo or look. Arndt & Gingrich said that it was used to introduce something new, "which calls for special attention" (1957, p. 371). If we examine texts in which Matthew used this particle, we will see that he did not use it as a device to introduce "dischronologized" information but to introduce new information or events in chronological sequence.

Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. 19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. 20 But while he thought on these things, behold [idou], the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

No one reading this passage would think that the angel had appeared to Joseph before, he was considering putting Mary away privately. Indeed, the text says that the angel appeared to Joseph while he was thinking on these things. Hence, idou was not used to introduce something that had happened before Joseph was thinking about putting Mary away. It was used to introduce an important new event, i. e., the sudden, unexpected appearance of the angel, which had happened in chronological order: (1) Joseph learned that Mary was pregnant, (2) Joseph was considering putting her away privately, and (3) the angel appeared to Joseph at that time.

Matthew 2:13 And when they [the wise men] were departed, behold [idou], the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him. 14 When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt....

In this passage, we see again how idou, as Arndt & Gingrich explained, introduced an important new event and did so in chronological sequence. The angel did not appear to Joseph before the wise men had departed. The wise men left, and then the angel appeared to Joseph. The examples that I will quote below follow the same pattern. Events happen, and then in chronological sequence, idou introduced what "Matthew" thought were important new events.

Matthew 9:32 As they [the blind men whom Jesus had healed] went out, behold [idou], they brought to him a dumb man possessed with a devil.

Matthew 17:5 While he [Peter] yet spake, behold [idou], a bright cloud overshadowed them....

Inerrantists who use the "dischronologized" argument to try to explain the inconsistency in Matthew 28:2 will quibble that the examples I have quoted contain chronological markers like when or while or as to denote the time of the events introduced by idou. They had happened while Joseph was thinking about putting Mary away or when the wise men had departed, etc. Inerrantists will quibble that there is no such chronological marker in Matthew 28:1, but they are wrong. In this passage, idou was preceded by kai, a conjunction that meant and, which was commonly used in Greek to string together events in chronological order. To see this, all we need to do is look at some kai idou examples in Matthew's gospel.

Matthew 27:50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. 51 And, behold [kai idou] the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent....

Do inerrantist quibbler seriously think that the veil of the temple had rent in twain before Jesus had "yielded up the ghost"? The obvious intention was to communicate that the events happened in chronological sequence. Jesus first "yielded up the ghost," and then the veil in the temple was rent in twain. "Matthew" was simply using the conjunction kai in the same way that English speakers use its equivalent and to tie events together in chronological order. If someone saw the sentence, "John Smith went to town and saw an automobile accident," who would think that the accident was seen before Smith went to town?

Matthew 4:11 Then the devil leaveth him [Jesus], and, behold [kai idou], angels came and ministered unto him.

Does "Matthew's" reference to the angels was "clearly dischonologized" and that the angels had ministered to Jesus before the devil left him?

Here are some other examples where "Matthew" used kai with idou with the clear intention of denoting chronological sequence.

Matthew 9:1 And he entered into a ship, and passed over, and came into his own city. 2 And, behold [kai idou], they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee. 3 And, behold [kai idou], certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth.

No one reading this would think that the man sick of palsy was brought to Jesus before he had entered the ship, passed over, and come into his own city. The conjunction kai [and] denoted a chronological sequence, and idou was used with it to introduce what "Matthew" thought was an important new event. Neither would anyone think that the accusation of the scribes that Jesus was blaspheming had preceded the healing of the sick man.

I will now quote other examples without comment, because in each case it is obvious that the conjunction kai [and] was used to indicate that an event was following in chronological sequences the one mentioned before it, and idou was used with it to indicate that it was a new event [happening in chronological sequence].

Matthew 15:21 Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon. 22 And, behold [kai idou], a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.

Matthew 17:1 And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart, 2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light. 3 And, behold [kai idou], there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.

Matthew 19:15 And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence. 16 And, behold [kai idou], one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?

Matthew 26:49 And forthwith he [Judas] came to Jesus, and said, Hail, master; and kissed him. 50 And Jesus said unto him, Friend, wherefore art thou come? Then came they, and laid hands on Jesus, and took him. 51 And, behold [kai idou], one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear.

I could quote several other examples, but these are sufficient to make my point. One doesn't have to be a linguistic expert to see that in each case kai idou was used to connect in chronological order a new event to a previously mentioned event.

For as Jonas was three days and three night in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Matthew 12:38-40).


This is hardly a failed prophecy.

did he stay 3 days and 3 nights? and where the textual support?



to be continued

[mkh4JC]

Well, before the gentelman of christianthinktank try to use his multiple visits theory,he should :



first:

pay attention to Mark 16


2 And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they [Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome] went to the tomb.


and as

in John 20 is a talk about a visit while it was still dark

if there had been more than one visit, one in the dark and another when the sun had risen ,then logically the first would be while it was still dark

what happened according to the writer in the first visit?

If she , while in the dark,found the stone rolled away and jesus not there , why then she and the other women had been saying to one another, "Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance to the tomb when the sun had risen ?"?

Well, this is what this gentlemen says:

Craig Blomberg:
"Finally, it is remarkable to observe how often the alleged contradictions among the gospels are cited without a discussion of the many proposed solutions which can fit them together in a very plausible and natural manner. John Wenham has quite recently devoted an entire book to a harmonization of the accounts and few of his proposals are entirely new. There is scarcely room to summarize all his main points, but in the case of the sample 'contradictions' mentioned above, one can offer the following brief replies: (a) angels generally appear in Scripture as men, and if one of the two were the primary spokesman, it would not be surprising if sometimes only he were mentioned; (b) it is likely that Jesus appeared to the eleven in Jerusalem, then later in Galilee when they had gone home after the Passover, and then once again in Jerusalem upon their return in preparation for the feast of Pentecost; (c) if Salome is both the 'mother of James and John' and the sister of Mary, Jesus' mother, there is no irreconcil- able problem with the lists of women; and (d) it is not unfair to describe the world as still rather dark at the first glimpse of morning daylight. The apparent discord among the gospels can be alleviated, but it must be admitted that any reconstruction of the events is speculative. "Mary (and other women if you wish) found the stone rolled away

second:




The writer tries to convince the readers that Mary Magdalena had returned to tell Peter and John that the body had been removed before she got the message that Jesus been resurrected.... unfortunately , the text can't help him ....

Matthew,Mark,Luke said that Mary Magdalene did hear the angel's resurrection message before going anywhere:.


Mark 16

1And the sabbath having past, Mary the Magdalene, and Mary of James, and Salome, bought spices, that having come, they may anoint him, 2and early in the morning of the first of the sabbaths, they come unto the sepulchre, at the rising of the sun, 3and they said among themselves, `Who shall roll away for us the stone out of the door of the sepulchre?' 4And having looked, they see that the stone hath been rolled away -- for it was very great, 5and having entered into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right hand, arrayed in a long white robe, and they were amazed. 6And he saith to them, `Be not amazed, ye seek Jesus the Nazarene, the crucified: he did rise -- he is not here; lo, the place where they laid him! 7and go, say to his disciples, and Peter, that he doth go before you to Galilee; there ye shall see him, as he said to you.'


Matthew 28

1And on the eve of the sabbaths, at the dawn, toward the first of the sabbaths, came Mary the Magdalene, and the other Mary, to see the sepulchre, 2and lo, there came a great earthquake, for a messenger of the Lord, having come down out of heaven, having come, did roll away the stone from the door, and was sitting upon it, 3and his countenance was as lightning, and his clothing white as snow, 4and from the fear of him did the keepers shake, and they became as dead men. 5And the messenger answering said to the women (Mary the Magdalene, and the other Mary ) , `Fear not ye, for I have known that Jesus, who hath been crucified, ye seek; 6he is not here, for he rose, as he said; come, see the place where the Lord was lying; 7and having gone quickly, say ye to his disciples, that he rose from the dead; and lo, he doth go before you to Galilee, there ye shall see him; lo, I have told you.' 8And having gone forth quickly from the tomb, with fear and great joy, they ran to tell to his disciples;

The argument made is that the other Gospel writers did not focus on Mary Magdalene running away to tell the disciples, but John did. All of the Gospel writers did not write the exact same thing, but that still doesn't mean there can be no textual harmony between the texts.

Of course, even if ALL the women saw ALL the events and reported them to ALL the writers at ALL the times, there is NO requirement (as per above) for ANY of the authors to record ANY of the details--if it was not germane to their literary purpose to do so.

Farrell till refuted that

Ok, but couldn't Matthew's account be speaking in the past tense. Perhaps the earthquake happened before the women went there, Mary Magdalene saw the rolled away stone, and immediately went to tell the disciples and then the other women went to speak with the angels. John's account supports this. Sure, it's not in the other Gospels, but that's why you have to consider all of them.

did he stay 3 days and 3 nights? and where the textual support?



to be continued

Well, here's this gentlemen's response:

Somebody wrote in a question about a PREVIOUS question I tried to answer (my original replies are in italic):

QUESTION: This comes from a list of reasons why humanists don't believe the Bible. I picked up their document from America On-Line. It is also a question I've had, but have never had answered. Jesus said he was going to be in the earth (buried) for three days and three nights. If he died on Friday and rose on Sunday morning, how is this three days and three nights.
ANSWER: This is one of the easier ones...the Jews counted PART of a day or night as a WHOLE day or nite, so part of Friday, all of Sat, part of Sun would be 'three days and three nights'--it was a Hebrew idiom of the day...

We do the same thing of course...if I say I worked at the office all day, 'all day' Normally doesn't mean 24 hours...it means most of the daylight hours or whatever...

This fits with the other predictions that says 'on the third day'...



[at this point, the NEW questioner asks:]
Sir, first of all, it seems that your example is not a very precise one. You have stated: "if I say I worked at the office all day, 'all day' Normally doesn't mean 24 hours". Although it is right, but it has a very simple reason for it... Tradition. No office works for 24 hours a day. Thus a "full day" with reference to an office, normally implies "Office Hours". Like wise, if while talking about a Cricket Match, someone says: "A whole day's play was lost due to rain"... The "Whole Day" with reference to a Cricket match would only mean six hours' play.
Thus, the meaning and implication of the phrases "Full Day", "Whole Day" and the word "Day", can and normally does change with a change in the whatever it has been used with reference to. For instance, if I say: "I stayed in America, for three days and three nights", now the word "day" is being used here in the absolute sense. Thus, one day and one night, should be a full circle. Dont you think so?

Then again, you have stated: "..the Jews counted PART of a day or night as a WHOLE day or nite".

My question with regard to this is: What is the source of this information about the referred Jewish tradition? Is it the Classical Jewish Literature? Is it the Bible itself? Is it Josephus? I hope you would appreciate that this is necessary for me to know because without it, I dont know how can I be sure about it?

I await your reply

XXXXX

PS: Furthermore, I would like to stress that when we say, for instance: "24 hours a day"... the word "day" here expands to include "day" and "night".. But when we say "22 nights and 23 days" here the word "day" does not include "nights".

Thus I think linguistically, "3 days and 3 nights" must include at least "Three" full or part days and "Three" full or part nights, separately. Three part days and only "Two" nights, it seems, cannot be termed as "Three Days and Three Nights". Please clarify.



I replied...

It is important to recognize first off, that the issue of "Don't you think so?" needs to be answered definitively 'no'...Idiomatic expressions in other cultures don't have to make ANY sense to us at all. Our job as readers of the literature from another culture is to try to understand THEIR idioms, rather than judge them.

So, with that in mind, let me answer the request above for the data that supports my original statement ("What is the source of this information about the referred Jewish tradition?")

Although I cannot list it all, let me give the main references available. Let me cite data from three sources: the OT, the Rabbinix, and one NT passage.

1. The OT data (to show that 'on the third day' = 'after three days')

Gen 42.16: "And he put them all in custody for three days. 18 On the third day, Joseph said to them, "Do this and you will live, for I fear God" and they are released ON that day (from the context of verses 25-26). In this case the 'for three days' meant only 'into the third day'
1 Kings 20.29: "For seven days they camped opposite each other, and on the seventh day the battle was joined. " In this case we have 'for seven days' meant only 'into the seventh day'.

2 Chr 10.5: "And he said to them, 'Return to me again in three days" (NAS) with verse 12: "So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam on the third day as the king had directed, saying, 'Return to me on the third day." In this case 'in three days' is equivalent to 'on the third day'.

Esther 4.16: "Go, gather together all the Jews who are in Susa, and fast for me. Do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my maids will fast as you do. When this is done, I will go to the king, even though it is against the law. And if I perish, I perish.'" And then in 5.1: "On the third day Esther put on her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the palace, in front of the king's hall. " In this case, "on the third day" is equivalent to "for three days, night or day".

1 Samuel 30.12: "He ate and was revived, for he had not eaten any food or drunk any water for three days and three nights. 13 David asked him, "To whom do you belong, and where do you come from?" He said, "I am an Egyptian, the slave of an Amalekite. My master abandoned me when I became ill three days ago. " In this case "for three days and three nights' somehow was fulfilled when his master left him 'three days ago'.

"Thus, the Old Testament gives the picture that the expressions 'three days,' 'the third day,' and 'three days and three nights' are used to signify the same period of time." [NT:CALC:73]



2. The Rabbinical literature also manifests this idiomatic range:
Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah, tenth in the descent from Ezra was very specific: "A day and a night are an Onah ['a portion of time'] and the portion of an Onah is as the whole of it" [J.Talmud, Shabbath 9.3 and b.Talmud, Pesahim 4a]
This understanding was used in the numerous correlations between Jonah 1.17 ('in the belly of the fish for three days and three nights') and the OT passages cited above [e.g. Mid.Rabbath on Genesis 56 (on 22.4); Genesis 91.7 (on 42.17-18)].



3. There is one NT passage that indicates this Jewish idiom.
Matt 27.63: ""Sir," they said, "we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, `After three days I will rise again.' 64 So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. " Note that 'after three days' was somehow equivalent to 'until the third day' (not 'until the fourth day').


This data should demonstrate the rough equivalence of the NT phrases.
.................................................. .................................................. ..............


And then somebody ELSE commented/asked:


I have been scanning your web site and find it very informative. Your treatment of others and their opinions is to be highly commended. I do
find that your attention to detail is very valuable but at times the original question seems to get lost. For instance you say that the old issue regarding the passage in Matt. 12:40 (3 days and 3 nights), is an easy one. Your supporting documentation is to the point. But your references do NOT answer the original question. Jesus arose in the morning (Mark 16:9), if we use the logic presented by you and others, we still have a problem...3 days and 2 nights. Jesus 'was risen early the first day of the week'. I can understand a partial day and a partial night as counting for a day and night...but if Jesus arose from the dead early Sunday then we have a missing night.
Can you help me out with this?

I replied with:

"Thanks for your kind words...and for pointing out the need to make a
clearer conclusion to the article (hopefully i can do that soon)...
"As for your question,

1. the day started at sundown (as the sabbath does today in Israel), and ANY part of the night/day cycle counted for the whole (as the article pointed out).
2. jesus death on Friday afternoon would have been part of the Thursday nite/Friday daylight "day".

3. thus, we have THREE 'day/night' days involved: "thur nite/friday daylight", "friday nite/sat daylight", "sat night/sunday daylight" (remembering again that a part of a period counted for the WHOLE)


He came back with:

Interesting logic but cannot agree with it. Its your use of Thursday night that is troubling.

And I tried again:

"Its common usage even today...if you have a block about it, just think about howIsrael does it TODAY...
"The sabbath runs from Friday sundown to Saturday Sundown...any point in time between those two is considered "on the sabbath"...and the two "halves" are NOT considered separate at all (the night before the dawn is NOT considered any different that the bright noonday hour)...you just have to go with the normal levels of ordinary precision...for example, for someone to say Jesus was mistaken when he said 'are there not 12 hours in the day?' when there are NEVER exactly 12 hours in a day is applying a false standard to ordinary discourse...at mathematical usage levels, '3 days and 3 nights' COULD NEVER EXACTLY EQUAL 'ON the third day'--but they used it that way in common discourse ANYWAY (and we do the same in other areas ourselves)...maybe you are applying an inappropriate precision grid onto ordinary language?--its a common problem for people of all persuasions and belief, and one i constantly have to be on guard against myself (as a westerner and science-type)...

" I dont know if this helps any, or just adds to the confusion..but i thought i would try again quickly before getting back to work...




Hope this helps,
Glenn M. Miller

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/q3rdday.html

[Aqeel Ahmed]

:sl:
In my experience in Life I never understood the god of Jewish, if they're are Ny on board, can someone answer my question , What reasons or proof do Jewish people have that their god exists?
:wl:

[Imam]

All of the Gospel writers did not write the exact same thing , but that still doesn't mean there can be no textual harmony between the texts

As for The writer's claim that variations "in no way contradict the idea of harmony," that would depend upon what the variations are. Variations that involve only the inclusion or exclusion of details may very well not contradict the idea of inerrancy, but variations that involve rank inconsistencies do contradict the idea of inerrancy.

it is not unfair to describe the world as still rather dark at the first glimpse of morning daylight.

It seems that the writer is living in another planet
He should just go to Palestine and see that daylight actually comes well before the sun is rising

so how it is fair to describe the world as still dark when the sun had risen?

Mark 16
And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen.


Certainly by the time the sun had risen, it was never "yet dark" outside

Ok, but couldn't Matthew's account be speaking in the past tense. Perhaps the earthquake happened before the women went there
.

I think the academic linguistic analysis I posted makes more sense than your guessing work.....

Well, this is what this gentlemen says:

The argument made is that the other Gospel writers did not focus on Mary Magdalene running away to tell the disciples, but John did. .

Well,

This early-departure quibble is nothing but another straw that inerrantists have grabbed to try to find consistency in the maze of inconsistencies that run throughout the resurrection narratives.

they try hopelessly to make John's Mary Magdalena consistent with the Mary Magdalena in Matthew's account

Is it is possible that Mary M left the tomb before she heard the angel's message?

The grammatical structure of Matthew's narrative requires readers to understand that Mary Magdalene was present from 28:1 through 28:10, and so she had to have both heard the angel announce the resurrection and experienced the personal encounter with Jesus after the women had run from the tomb. "Matthew" named only Mary Magdalene and the other Mary in his narrative; therefore, the reference to "the women" whom the angel spoke to in verse 5 by necessity had to include Mary Magdalene, and the plural pronouns they and them thereafter, which referred back to "the women," also, by grammatical necessity, had to include Mary Magdalene. No other conclusion can be obtained from the grammatical structure of this passage.

Matthew 28:1 Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. 2 And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it. 3 His countenance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. 4 And the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men. 5 But the angel answered and said to Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. 6 He is not here; for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. 7 And go quickly and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead, and indeed He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him. Behold, I have told you." 8 So Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went out quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring His disciples word. 9 And as Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to tell His disciples, behold, Jesus met Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, saying, "Rejoice!" So Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came and held Him by the feet . 10 Then Jesus said to Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, "Do not be afraid. Go and tell My brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see Me."

he grammatical structure of Matthew's text will not allow this early departure of Mary Magdalene or the other Mary. If she departed before "the angels popped in," then just who the hell were the women whom the angel spoke to in Matthew 28:5? The two Marys were the only women that Matthew mentioned in his narrative.


The grammatical structure makes it so that it's impossible to divorce Mary Magdalene from not only having been there the whole time but also, necessarily makes her one of the women who saw a vision of angels who said that Jesus was alive!


Aside from this, there is a fact that I have already established: if the gospel writers were indeed "inspired" by the omniscient, omnipotent "Holy Spirit," then they were not the ones deciding what to include and what to exclude. That decision was being made for them; otherwise, there would have been no logical purpose at all for the "Holy Spirit" to have "inspired" them.

what sense is the Bible the "word of God." If, for example, Mark wrote what Mark chose to select, then the gospel of Mark would not be "the word of God" but the word of Mark. If not, why not?
If the "inspiration" of the omniscient, omnipotent "Holy Spirit" did not so guide and direct the writers that what they wrote was truth, then what was the purpose of inspiration? Was the "Holy Spirit" just wasting his time exercising an influence called "inspiration" that accomplished nothing more than what they writers could have accomplished on their own through reliance on oral traditions and their own personal experiences and choices?
If the Bible is indeed "the word of God," as biblical inerrantists claim, then it can be the word of God only if it is the word of God and not the word of Isaiah or Jeremiah or John or Mark or the apostle Paul . If the gospel of Mark contains only what Mark knew from his own personal experiences or familiarity with "oral traditions" and included by choices that he himself made, then what was the purpose of divine "inspiration"?

If the gospel writers were indeed "inspired" by the omniscient, omnipotent "Holy Spirit," then they were not writing what they chose to write or what they knew from "oral traditions" or their own personal experiences but were writing what they were directed by the omni-one to write. If the apostles, when they were brought before kings, did not speak their own words but what the "spirit of the Father" spoke through them, then why, when they were writing the New Testament, did they not write what the Holy Spirit was writing through them? Unless this was the case, then the gospel of Mark was not "the word of God" but the word of Mark, and the gospel of Matthew was not "the word of God" but the word of Matthew. If not, why not?



1. By names, who were “the women” who went to the tomb in Matthew’s narrative?

2. What is your textual basis for this answer?

3. If you excluded Mary Magdalene from your answer to number 1, what was your textual basis for this exclusion.

4. By names, who were “the women” whom the angel told that Jesus had risen (v:5)?

5. If you excluded Mary Magdalene from your answer to number 4, what was your textual basis for this exclusion?

6. By names, who were “the women” who ran from the tomb and encountered the resurrected Jesus (vs:8-10).

7. If you excluded Mary Magdalene from your answer to number 6. what was your textual basis for this exclusion?

8. If you included Mary Magdalene in your answers, how do you explain Mary Magdalene’s telling Peter and John that the body of Jesus had been stolen if she had by this time encountered both the angel and the risen Jesus?

till this moment I'm typing ,all the Christian Apologists failed miserably to solve such serious problem which damage the credibility of the New Testament writers .
and as Christianity stands or fall on its gospel ,and its gospel stands or fall on the resurrection account ...


hence, without credible resurrection account there would be no credible gospel and logically no credible Christianity...

the Jews counted PART of a day or night as a WHOLE day or nite, so part of Friday, all of Sat, part of Sun would be 'three days and three nights'--it was a Hebrew idiom of the day...

there is no such idiom in the Hebrew language. A part of a day was reckoned as a day and a part of a night was reckoned as a night but nowhere in Hebrew literature is any part of a day (as opposed to night) reckoned as a day and a night.there is no evidence that "three days and three nights" is an idiom. Just saying it doesn't make it so. There is no reason to believe that "three days and three nights" means anything other than "three days and three nights". An idiom is an expression whose meaning cannot be derived from its constituent elements. The above expression shows no evidence of an idiomatic expression.



No, there is no evidence that "three days and three nights" can equal the "third day"unless the event being counted begins at nighttime. Then, logically, the third day would have the third night come before it and in that sense "three days and three nights" does equal "the third day".



the examples he used from the old Testament;

in Gen 42.16

Where does it say here that "on the third day" is equal to "after three days"? It doesn't.


,Chr 10.5

If Rehoboam said this on A Friday then Sunday would be the third day. He told them to return in three days and they came back on the third day (two days later). the phrase "on the third day" was used in the sense of "the day after tomorrow" (Ex 19:10,11,15; Lev 7:16-18; 19:6,7; 1 Sam 20:12; Luke 13:32).So the "third day" could also refer to "two days later".



,Esther 4.16,

The third day already included the third night before it. If the fast began Friday night then the third day (Monday daytime) would include three days and three nights. That is because the night was counted first. However, in the NT we see Jesus died three hours before sunset Nisan 14. This means the first day would precede the first night. This is what causes the conflict. Had Jesus died after sunset then we would begin counting with the night first and three days and three nights later would still be the third day (as in Esther). But the problem remains that Jesus died in the afternoon of the first day. The first night followed, then a whole day (Sat) and a night. That makes only 2 days and 2 nights.


1 Samuel 30.12

There are two separate events being counted here: 1) the time of abandonment and 2) the beginning of the fast. There is no evidence they began at the same time. One could logically come before the other.although his master abandoned him on Thursday afternoon the slave still had something to eat after his master abandoned him because the text says his fast did not begin until about Thursday sunset


There weaknesses to the Talmudic citation mentioned above.

First, it overlooks the fact that Jesus used three nights as well as three
days in his prophecy. That defined the Onah for his audience. According to
the popular interpretation of the above passage, an hour could be an Onah,
a half day could be an Onah, an hour of night could be an Onah, a half of a
> night could be an Onah, a part of a day and a part of a night could be an
> Onah etc, etc, etc. The problem is this: Jesus defined how big his Onah
was> going to be. His three Onahs were going to be composed of three days and three nights. The same principal applied to the definition of a day. Jesus
said there were 12 hours in a day, yet we know the Jews taught that any
part of a day would be reckoned as the whole (for computational purposes). That means that although a day consisted of 12 hours and one hour could be
considered a day, there was no way that an hour could also be considered
12 hours.
It would be proper to say (if you worked one hour) that you had worked one day (because it is used in its generic sense) but it would be improper to say you had worked 12 hours. The specific term defined the length of the day, not the other way around. If someone promised someone else 12 hours of
work for 60 dollars then quit after one hour and demanded his full wages
because after all "any part of the day was counted as a day so therefore one hour is the same as 12 hours" we would at once think he was nuts. The generic term "day" could be used for counting purposes even if a part of a day was counted but the specific terms 6 hours, 9 hours, etc meant exactly that, no more, no less. Likewise (allowing the interpretation of Onah above) the generic expression "Onah" was used for counting periods of time consisting of a day and a night and someone could claim he had traveled for "five Onahs" even if he had traveled for a part of five Onahs. But if he used the specific term he traveled for "five days and five nights" then he was understood to have literally meant "five days and five nights". The specific term always defined the boundaries. That is important to remember. That meant that the "three Onahs" of Jesus were clearly defined as Onahs that consisted of three days and three nights.

there is another problem with that passage from the Talmud. that an "Onah" was thought of as a unit.By definition, an Onah was a "day and a night". Minus one of those elements it ceased being an Onah. Any part of a day was counted as a day and any part of a night was counted as a night but any part of a day AND a night was reckoned as one Onah. That means if someone served parts of six days and parts of six nights he was said to have served "six Onahs". If he served only parts of six days and *five* nights then it was said he served "five Onahs and a day" or more commonly "six days and five nights". In any case, the Talmud quote doesn't really hold up well to scrutiny(Quote from David,Errant years).

There is one NT passage that indicates this Jewish idiom. Matt 27.63: ""Sir," they said, "we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, After three days I will rise again.' 64 So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. " Note that'after three days' was somehow equivalent to 'until the third day..

After three days" can mean on the "third day" as well so there is no problem here. This is the way the Pharisees understood it. This doesn't solve the problem of the missing night though. Jesus need not spend the whole three days in the grave for the third day to be counted. So in this usage, if Jesus rose a few hours into the third day, it could be said to be "after three days". I do not make a big deal out of this passage (and those in Mark) as some skeptics do. Some skeptics use these "after three day" passages alongside the "three days and three nights" passage and claim contradiction with the "on the third day" passages. It has been shown to me that it was possible for "after three days" to be compatible with "the third day" so that presents no problem here.

While it is true that according to Jewish law part of the day is equivalent to a full day, Matthew's Jesus promised to be buried specifically for three days and three nights. By the use of the phrase "three days and three nights," Matthew's Jesus indicated that he expected to be buried for three consecutive periods between dawn and dark (day) and dark and dawn (night), or approximately seventy-two hours. The Scriptures employ the phrase "three days" in a more general sense than that expressed by "three days and three nights." For example, "three days" does not necessarily include the period of day or night at either the beginning or end of the total time to be indicated. Therefore, when the phrase "three days" is meant to specifically include three days and three nights, and this is not evident from the text, it must be stated as such: ". . . neither eat nor drink three days, night or day . . ." (Esther 4:16). However, when the phrase "three days and three nights" is stated, it includes either all three days and all three nights or can be deficient in only parts of a day or night at the beginning or end of the entire period, but never of a full segment of day or night out of twenty-four hours (1 Samuel 30:11-13). Although Jesus did not have to be buried exactly seventy-two hours, he did have to be buried at least on parts of three days and three nights. Jesus died on a Friday at the ninth hour, which corresponds to about 3 P.M. The claim is made that Jesus rose three days later, on a Sunday. This would mean that he was buried during the daylight hours of three different days. If this was true, he was buried for only two nights.

The Gospel of John indicates that Jesus' promise to rise after being buried three days and three nights was never fulfilled. According to Matthew, the women came to the tomb "as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week" (Matthew 28:1), Mark says "they came to the tomb when the sun had risen" (Mark 16:2), and Luke says it was "at early dawn that they came to the tomb" (Luke 24:1). But in John it clearly states that it was not yet dawn when the body of Jesus disappeared from the tomb: "On the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, while it was still dark, and saw the stone already taken away from the tomb" (John 20:1). Thus, John says that Jesus, having risen before the dawn of Sunday morning, was buried for only two days and two nights, i.e., one full day (Saturday), part of another (Friday), and two nights (Friday and Saturday nights). This contradicts the assertion that in fulfillment of prophecy, Jesus was buried three days and three nights. The New Testament evidence simply does not add up to three days, i.e., daylight hours, and three nights, as specifically promised by Jesus. Therefore, Jesus did not fulfill his very own prediction.

Appendix 144 From The Companion Bible.

The fact that "three days" is used by Hebrew idiom for any part of three days and three nights is not disputed; because that was the common way of reckoning, just as it was when used of years. Three or any number of years was used inclusively of any part of those years, as may be seen in the reckoning of the reigns of any of the kings of Israel and Judah.
But, when the number of "nights" is stated as well as the number of "days", then the expression ceases to be an idiom, and becomes a literal statement of fact. Moreover, as the Hebrew day began at sunset the day was reckoned from one sunset to another, the "twelve hours in the day" (John 11:9) being reckoned from sunrise, and the twelve hours of the night from sunset. An evening-morning was thus used for a whole day of twenty-four hours, as in the first chapter of Genesis. Hence the expression "a night and a day" in 2 Corinthians 11:25 denotes a complete day (Greek nuchthemeron). When Esther says (Esther 4:16) "fast ye for me, and neither eat nor drink three days", she defines her meaning as being three complete days, becuase she adds (being a Jewess) "night or day". And when it is written that the fast ended on "the third day" (5:1), "the third day" must have succeeded and included the third night. In like manner the sacred record states that the young man (in 1 Samuel 30:12) "had eaten no bread, nor drunk any water, three days and three nights". Hence, when the young man explains the reason, he says, "because three days agone I fell sick". He means therefore three complete days and nights, because, being an Egyptian (verses 11, 13) he naturally reckoned his day as beginning at sunrise according to the Egyptian manner (see Encycl. Brit., 11th (Cambridge) ed., vol xi, page 77). His "three days agone" refers to the beginning of his sickness, and includes the whole period, giving the reason for his having gone without food during the whole period stated. Hence, when it says that "Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights" (Jonah 1:17) it means exactly what is says, and that this can be the only meaning of the expression in Matthew 12:40; 16:4. Luke 11:30, is shown in Appendix 156.

[mkh4JC]

Ok, I'm going to cut this short, because in reality I'm only a baby in Christ. And even if I knew all the answers to your questions, and I answered them perfectly, it would still take the Father to draw you to Christ, for him to use the Holy Spirit to convict you of your sin. But I will answer this, and let you have the last word.

I think the academic linguistic analysis I posted makes more sense than your guessing work.....

Not so, both Mark and John describe the exact same things.

[Imam]

Ok, I'm going to cut this short, because in reality I'm only a baby in Christ. , for him to use the Holy Spirit to convict you of your sin. .

Fedos

I understand your feelings well..

sadly,you have been victimized by the Sunday preaching

I showed you irrefutable proofs that the human concept of blood atonement is derived from paganism and has no dependable textual support

If you are of such persons who find difficulty in getting the message through academic documented work, just go watch some jungle adventure movies which show those whom christians call (savages,pagans) performing the exact same thing christians believe in (human sacrifice to satisfy God)



Tertullian confessed that pagans worshiped crucified saviors hanging on a cross.
he said:
"Crosses, moreover, we Christians neither venerate nor wish for. You indeed who consecrate gods of wood venerate wooden crosses, perhaps as parts of your gods. For your very standards, as well as your banners, and flags of your camps, what are they but crosses gilded and adorned? Your victorious trophies not only imitate the appearance of a simple cross, but also that of a man affixed to it."

Celsus (his literary activity falls between the years 175 -180) . asks:

Are these distinctive happenings unique to the Christians-and if so, how are they unique? Or are ours to be accounted myths and theirs believed? What reasons do the Christians give for the distinctiveness of their beliefs? In truth there is nothing at all unusual about what the Christians believe, except that they believe it to the exclusion of more comprehensive truths about God.

it would still take the Father to draw you to Christ, for him to use the Holy Spirit to convict you of your sin. .

even If I expect you to pray for me to the father , readers of the thread would not be satisfied to see the thread turning into a session of preaching and praying....


the best thing to offer me and the visitors of the thread is your continual the two-sided discussion.....

I'm expecting you not offering prayer but offering other Old Testament passages that might validate the claims of the NT writers.....

what else you think been fulfilled by Jesus (as depicted by the NT writers)?

[mkh4JC]

Fedos

I understand your feelings well..

sadly,you have been victimized by the Sunday preaching

I showed you irrefutable proofs that the human concept of blood atonement is derived from paganism and has no dependable textual support


If you are of such persons who find difficulty in getting the message through academic documented work, just go watch some jungle adventure movies which show those whom christians call (savages,pagans) performing the exact same thing christians believe in (human sacrifice to satisfy God)



Tertullian confessed that pagans worshiped crucified saviors hanging on a cross.
he said:
"Crosses, moreover, we Christians neither venerate nor wish for. You indeed who consecrate gods of wood venerate wooden crosses, perhaps as parts of your gods. For your very standards, as well as your banners, and flags of your camps, what are they but crosses gilded and adorned? Your victorious trophies not only imitate the appearance of a simple cross, but also that of a man affixed to it."

Celsus (his literary activity falls between the years 175 -180) . asks:

Are these distinctive happenings unique to the Christians-and if so, how are they unique? Or are ours to be accounted myths and theirs believed? What reasons do the Christians give for the distinctiveness of their beliefs? In truth there is nothing at all unusual about what the Christians believe, except that they believe it to the exclusion of more comprehensive truths about God.






even If I expect you to pray for me to the father , readers of the thread would not be satisfied to see the thread turning into a session of preaching and praying....


the best thing to offer me and the visitors of the thread is your continual the two-sided discussion.....

I'm expecting you not offering prayer but offering other Old Testament passages that might validate the claims of the NT writers.....

what else you think been fulfilled by Jesus (as depicted by the NT writers)?

Well, it was God himself who introduced blood sacrifice for the remission of sins to humankind. It was not pagan in the beginning, though overtime (and because of the fall and the devil's influence) it became pagan through certain peoples (it was not pagan--for instance--through the Jewish people).

But God introducing blood sacrifice to human kind can be seen as far back as the Old Testament and Cain and Abel's offerings:

'And in the process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord.

And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering:

But unto Cain and his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.

And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?

If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.'

Genesis: 4: 3-7.

[جوري]

Fedos

I understand your feelings well..

sadly,you have been victimized by the Sunday preaching

I showed you irrefutable proofs that the human concept of blood atonement is derived from paganism and has no dependable textual support

If you are of such persons who find difficulty in getting the message through academic documented work, just go watch some jungle adventure movies which show those whom christians call (savages,pagans) performing the exact same thing christians believe in (human sacrifice to satisfy God)



Tertullian confessed that pagans worshiped crucified saviors hanging on a cross.
he said:
"Crosses, moreover, we Christians neither venerate nor wish for. You indeed who consecrate gods of wood venerate wooden crosses, perhaps as parts of your gods. For your very standards, as well as your banners, and flags of your camps, what are they but crosses gilded and adorned? Your victorious trophies not only imitate the appearance of a simple cross, but also that of a man affixed to it."

Celsus (his literary activity falls between the years 175 -180) . asks:

Are these distinctive happenings unique to the Christians-and if so, how are they unique? Or are ours to be accounted myths and theirs believed? What reasons do the Christians give for the distinctiveness of their beliefs? In truth there is nothing at all unusual about what the Christians believe, except that they believe it to the exclusion of more comprehensive truths about God.






even If I expect you to pray for me to the father , readers of the thread would not be satisfied to see the thread turning into a session of preaching and praying....


the best thing to offer me and the visitors of the thread is your continual the two-sided discussion.....

I'm expecting you not offering prayer but offering other Old Testament passages that might validate the claims of the NT writers.....

what else you think been fulfilled by Jesus (as depicted by the NT writers)?

Another brilliant post.. Masha'Allah.. and Jazaka Allah khyran..

:w:

[Zamtsa]

Jews said that they are the sons of Ibrahim, or even the sons of God, Al Qur'an stated this, and here's the fact about them:


Al Baqarah(2):131 Behold! his Lord said to him: "Bow (thy will to me)" He said: "I bow (my will) to the Lord and Cherisher of the universe."

The follower of Ibrahim or sons of Ibrahim are the people who are Muslim(bow to the will of Allah and they bow in their pray).


132 And this was the legacy that Abraham left to his sons and so did Jacob; "O my sons! Allah hath chosen the faith for you; then die not except in the faith of Islam."

Din of Ibrahim must be preserved until die, if they really claim as the sons of Ibrahim.


133 Were ye witnesses when death appeared before Jacob? Behold he said to his sons: "What will ye worship after me?" They said: "We shall worship thy Allah and the Allah of thy fathers of Abraham Isma`il and Isaac the one (true) Allah to Him we bow (in Islam)."

Sons Ibrahim 'alaihi Salaam worship only Allahu Ta'ala.


134 That was a People that hath passed away. They shall reap the fruit of what they did and ye of what ye do! of their merits there is no question in your case!

Ummah of Bani Isra'il hath their Sunnah, Manhaj and Syari'at, while ummah of Muhammad Shalallahu 'alaihi wa Sallam also have their own given by Allahu Ta'ala.


135 They say: "Become Jews or Christians if ye would be guided (to salvation)." Say thou: "Nay! (I would rather) the religion of Abraham the true and he joined not gods with Allah."

136 Say ye: "We believe in Allah and the revelation given to us and to Abraham Isma`il Isaac Jacob and the Tribes and that given to Moses and Jesus and that given to (all) Prophets from their Lord we make no difference between one and another of them and we bow to Allah (in Islam)."

Sons of Ibrahim do not differ between the Prophets, and do not praise Muhammad Shalallahu 'alaihi wa Sallam more than what he was.


137 So if they believe as ye believe they are indeed on the right path; but if they turn back it is they who are in schism; but Allah will suffice thee as against them and He is the All-Hearing the All- Knowing.

138 (Our religion is) the baptism of Allah; and who can baptize better than Allah? and it is He whom we worship.

Allahu Ta'ala decided how the ways of worship for Muslim.


139 Say: Will ye dispute with us about Allah seeing that He is our Lord and your Lord; that we are responsible for our doings and ye for yours; and that we are sincere (in our faith) in Him?

Allahu Ta'ala told ummah of Rasulullah not to compare themselves with ummah before them unless Allahu Ta'ala stated the comparation between that ummah with this ummah.


140 Or do ye say that Abraham Isma`il Isaac Jacob and the Tribes were Jews or Christians? Say: Do ye know better than Allah? Ah! who is more unjust than those who conceal the testimony they have from Allah? But Allah is not unmindful of what ye do!

141 That was a people that hath passed away. They shall reap the fruit of what they did and ye of what ye do! Of their merits there is no question in your case.

Ibrahim and his descendants do not have the fanaticism based on LINEAGE, but if the people have good DEEDS, then it will SUPPORT their lineage.


Assalamu'alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakaatuh.

[Imam]

Two key words would enable the honest researcher of what is the reality of (korban) is:

1- The original meaning of the hebrew word Korban


2- the story of Abel and cain as in Bible and Quran

1- The word Korban shares the Hebrew verb root קרב (QRV),also the Arabic verb root (QRB) with the word for "nearness" or "close,"and suggesting the sacrifice was related to drawing closer to God, a meaning the standard English translations of "sacrifice" or "offering" do not fully convey


2-The first Biblical story of (korban) defined the concept well........ there is not the slightest hint that it was a deal of (blood for sin), as a matter of fact the story shows exactly the opposite.....

Adam knew his wife Eve intimately, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain. She said, "I have had a male child with the LORD's help." 2Then she also gave birth to his brother Abel. Now Abel became a shepherd of a flock, but Cain cultivated the land. 3In the course of time Cain presented some of the land's produce as an offering to the LORD. 4And Abel also presented [an offering] — some of the firstborn of his flock and their fat portions. The Lord had regard for Abel and his offering, 5but He did not have regard for Cain and his offering. Cain was furious, and he was downcast. 6Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you furious? And why are you downcast?[32] 7If you do right, won't you be accepted? But if you do not do right, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must master it." 8Cain said to his brother Abel, "Let's go out to the field." And while they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him. Genesis 4:1-8


The story defined the act as:


1- The korban is a practice of offering valuable things owned by the offerer eg; food, objects,animal etc...

2- The korban is not (a blood for sin deal) :

A-Cain presented some of the land's produce as an offering and not animals to shed their blood....

B- Abel wasn't such wicked person to seek blood for sin deal,he was righteous
Matthew 23:35
That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel

C- The reason why God rejected Cain's korban is simply because he didn't do That which is right in the sight of God.

3- The korban here is not , TO APPEASE GOD'S ANGER but rather to TO APPEASE MAN'S MIND
as Abel is a righteous ,by his korban he needs to obtain witness that he was righteous, and a justified person........

the korban been offered here is a question:

God ,Are you satisfied with me? am I righteous
in your eyes? if so show me with my eyes something concrete;eg a qurban consumed by Fire From heaven


in light of all that ,your claim

.
But God introducing blood sacrifice to human kind can be seen as far back as the Old Testament and Cain and Abel's offerings:

proved to be false

.It was not pagan in the beginning, though overtime (and because of the devil's influence)

agree

it became pagan through certain peoples (it was not pagan--for instance--through the Jewish people).

that is a double-faced approach

How changing names ,would change the reality of the practice?!

Jews practiced exactly the same thing that pagans practiced,being Jews doesn't make the pagan act to be different in the eyes of God....



well,just let's not go far from the thread original topic.....

you haven't answered my question yet:

what other Old Testament passages you think been fulfilled by Jesus (as depicted by the NT writers)?

peace

[mkh4JC]

Well, you're not going to convince me of something like that, not when blood sacrifice is a pillar of the Old Testament. I've already told you that I didn't want to continue, because even if I knew all the answers to your questions and I answered them perfectly, it would still take divine intervention for you to come to know Christ. So this will be my last response. Take care.

[Grace Seeker]

Fedos

I understand your feelings well..

sadly,you have been victimized by the Sunday preaching

I showed you irrefutable proofs that the human concept of blood atonement is derived from paganism and has no dependable textual support

Though Allah stayed his hand, for what purpose, beyond a test of obedience, was Ibrahim's sacrifice of Ishamael to be enacted?

The Jews believed in and practiced blood atonement based on instructions that God gave to Moses preserved in verses like this:

For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. (Leviticus 17:11)

Are you proposing that this too was of pagan origin and not Allah's direction?

[doorster]

Though Allah stayed his hand, for what purpose, beyond a test of obedience, was Ibrahim's sacrifice of Ishamael to be enacted?

The Jews believed in and practiced blood atonement based on instructions that God gave to Moses preserved in verses like this:

Are you proposing that this too was of pagan origin and not Allah's direction?]

Topic Title is: Why Jews don't believe in JESUS!


BackOnTopic:

For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.(Leviticus 17:11)

"By loving kindness and truth, iniquity is atoned for..." (Proverbs 16:6).

"If you return to G-d you will be restored; if you remove unrighteousness far from your tent...then you will delight in G-d..." (Job 22:23-27).

"Depart from evil, and do good, so you will abide forever." (Psalm 37:27, cf. Ezekiel 33, Zechariah 1:3, Jeremiah 26:13).

For I desire loving-kindness, and not sacrifices, and knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. (Hoshea 6:6.)

2 Take words with you and return to the LORD.
Say to him: "Forgive all our sins and receive us graciously, that we may offer the fruit of our lips.3 Assyria cannot save us; we will not mount war-horses. We will never again say 'Our gods' to what our own hands have made, for in you the fatherless find compassion." (Hoshea 14:2-3:)


To do justice and judgement is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice. (Proverbs 21:3)
__________________

Are Christians consistent with the Jewish Bible when they claim that atonement is only possible with a blood sacrifice? Did the Rabbis just make up the idea that we can restore our relationship with G-d through prayer and repentance? YOU DECIDE! (from: jewishpassion)

Leviticus 17:11

By Rabbi Michael Skobac
One of the cornerstones of Christian theology is that the only way to achieve atonement for sins is through the offering of a sacrifice whose blood is shed in our place. The Greek Testament makes this very clear in Hebrews 9:22 "...without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." Is this idea consistent with the teachings of the Tanach, or do the Jewish and Christian bibles diverge on this issue? Christians generally insist that the absolute need for a vicarious blood sacrifice is rooted in the Torah, and cite as proof Leviticus 17:11 "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul."

If you are a Christian, or are a Jew who has been approached by Christian missionaries, you have probably heard many sermons on the topic of atonement, and have undoubtedly read many studies which support the contention that there is no atonement without blood. Of course you are also aware that this is a teaching which is not shared by traditional Jews. Have you ever wondered how they could reject what to others seems so clear? This study has been prepared to give you the opportunity to consider a different perspective on the vital issue of atonement.
ANOTHER LOOK AT LEVITICUS 17:11

You might remember that in junior high school, we were often given an assignment to write the title for a story; what is the central idea of a passage. Let's look at Leviticus 17:11 in context:

"And whatever man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who sojourn among you, who consumes any blood, I will set My face against that person who consumes blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul. Therefore, I say to the children of Israel, `No one among you shall consume blood, nor shall any stranger who sojourns among you consume blood.'"

What should immediately be apparent is that the topic of this passage is not how to secure atonement from sins, but the prohibition against consuming blood. We are told parenthetically that the reason for this prohibition is that the blood contains the vitality of the animal (cf. Genesis 9:4, Deuteronomy 12:23) and consequently, when we bring an animal sacrifice, its blood serves as the atoning agent, and not another part of its body. Since Leviticus 17 doesn't come to teach us about the principles of atonement, we will have to look elsewhere for the Bible's most important teaching on how to repair our relationships with G-d.

Before proceeding, let's consider another point about what is, and what is not being said in Leviticus 17:11. The passage does say that since blood symbolizes the life of the animal, G-d has given it to us as a means of atoning for our sins. But does the verse clearly teach that it is the only means G-d has provided to make atonement? As with any other Biblical study, we will have to examine this question in light of the Bible as a whole. But for now, we should note that our verse merely says that blood can serve as an atonement. It is an effective means of atonement, but by no means the only form of atonement.

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).

Examining the Christian interpretation of Leviticus 17:11 generates some serious problems. What happens if someone can't afford to purchase an animal for his sin offering? Is it possible that G-d would institute a system of atonement that could only be used by the wealthy? The Torah took this into account and allowed the poor person to bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons if he couldn't afford a lamb (Leviticus 5:7). However, what if someone was so destitute, that he couldn't afford even these small birds?

"But if his means are insufficient for two turtledoves or two young pigeons, then for his offering for that which he has sinned, he shall bring the tenth of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall not put oil on it or place incense on it, for it is a sin offering." (Leviticus 5:11)

Since flour could be used for a sin offering, it is clear that blood was not a prerequisite for atonement. Another example will drive home the point. The proposition that only blood sacrifices could secure atonement creates a dilemma. Could it be that G-d would set up a system of atonement that wouldn't be available to all people at all times? While the Temple stood, sacrifices did serve as part of the atonement process. But what is the fate of Jewish people who don't have access to the Temple? What were the Jewish people supposed to do after 586 BCE when the first Temple was destroyed and they were exiled to Babylon? What did the Jewish people do in the times of the Macabees when the Syrian-Greeks were in control of the Temple and didn't allow sacrifices?

Christians erroneously claim that Rabbinic Judaism came up with novel, non-Biblical measures to deal with atonement after the destruction of the Temple by the Romans in 70 CE. Actually, it wasn't Talmudic innovation at all- the Bible anticipated the possibility of the cessation of sacrifices. When King Solomon finally laid the finishing touches on the Holy Temple in Jerusalem, he inaugurated it with a moving dedication speech (I Kings 8; II Chronicles 6). In this lengthy speech of almost 50 verses, you will notice that Solomon doesn't speak about sacrifices at all! This omission would be strange if the most crucial part of the Temple were the sacrifices. Actually, the central focus of the Temple was the Holy Ark (Exodus 25) containing the Torah. The Temple was first and foremost a symbol of G-d's presence and revelation to the Jewish people (I Kings 8:13, Exodus 25:8).
Towards the end of his speech, Solomon deals with the possibility of the Jewish people being denied access to the Temple in the eventuality that they are exiled from the land of Israel.

"If they return to You with all their heart and with all their soul in the land of their enemies who have taken them captive, and pray to You toward their land which You have given to their fathers, the city which You have chosen, and the house which I have built for Your name; then hear their prayer and their supplication in heaven Your dwelling place, and maintain their cause, and forgive Your people who have sinned against You and all their transgressions which they have transgressed against You..." (I Kings 8:46-50).

This seminal passage puts the spotlight on the Christian misunderstanding of Leviticus 17:11. The Bible is clearly teaching that sacrifices weren't necessary in order to atone for sins. Prayer and repentance are cited here as effective means for securing atonement. Certainly, when the Temple stood, and one could afford an animal, a sacrifice was brought as part of the atonement process for unintentional sins. Leviticus 17:11 teaches that when we bring such an animal as a sacrifice, we aren't allowed to consume its blood, because as the life force, it is the part of the animal that affects our atonement.

Christian dogma holds that the crucifixion of Jesus at Calvary served as the final atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world. Christianity insists that this is not just a Pauline innovation, but reflects the requirements of the Jewish Bible, and tries to establish this by pointing to Leviticus 17:11 as the key to atonement in the Tanach. However, if this passage is examined, it will be clear that Jesus could never serve as an atoning sacrifice. Obviously, the shedding of blood by pricking my finger or killing my cat won't fulfill the Biblical requirements for atonement. The Torah delineates how sacrifices are to be brought.

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls..."

Clearly, not any spilled blood is accepted by the Torah as a sacrifice. Jesus' crucifixion may qualify as an atonement according to the Greek Testament, but since his blood was not offered on the altar, it is not in line with what the Torah mandates.

There are actually several other factors which would render the crucifixion of Jesus an unacceptable sacrifice. According to the Biblical rules in Leviticus, all sacrifices had to be offered by a Priest who descends from Aaron. This was not the case in the death of Jesus, who was crucified by Roman soldiers. Additionally, Biblical law prohibited any sacrifice which was blemished or maimed (Leviticus 22:19-21). However, prior to his crucifixion, Jesus was whipped and beaten (Matthew 27:26, Mark 15:19, John 19:3) which would render him unfit. Furthermore, Jesus was circumcised in the flesh, which according to Philippians 3:2 and Galatians 5:12 is considered mutilation.

Frequently, Christians react to this line of reasoning by protesting that it is improper to be so literal, and that Jesus' death was more of a symbolic or spiritual sacrifice. This would be fine if the Bible provided for such ethereal offerings, but such is not the case. The Greek Testament, however, does insist that Jesus was a real sacrifice, literally fulfilling the Biblical requirements of such:

"But coming to Jesus, when they saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs...in order that the Scripture might be fulfilled: `Not a bone of him shall be broken.'" (John 19:33-36)

The Gospel of John portrays Jesus as the Paschal lamb which was not supposed to have any of its bones broken (Exodus 12:46, Numbers 9:12). Since the author of John insists that Jesus was a real sacrifice to the extent that the Biblical rules of the Passover were fulfilled in him, we can't dismiss the problems cited above as legalistic nit-picking.

One wonders why the Greek Testament chose to type Jesus as a Paschal lamb rather than the sacrifice for the Day of Atonement. We know from Exodus 12 that the Passover sacrifice did not serve as an atonement for sins, it commemorates the exodus from Egypt. (Even when the lamb was slaughtered in Egypt and its blood smeared on the doorposts, it did not serve to atone for the sins of anyone. It was a sign for the angel of death to pass over Jewish homes during the plague of the first born. The only people in danger were first born males, the blood wasn't a help to other people in the family, and didn't serve as an atonement for the first born). A more fitting prototype for Jesus would have been the Yom Kippur sacrifice, which was an atonement for the sins of all the people. It is interesting that according to Leviticus 16:10,21-22, the animal which effectuated the atonement for the sins of the nation was not killed, but sent live out into the desert. Again, the shedding of blood is not a sine qua non for atonement.

The Greek Testament went to some great lengths to demonstrate that the atoning death of Jesus was predicated upon the Jewish Bible. In the book of Hebrews, a verse from the book of Psalms is quoted as evidence that the sacrifice of Jesus was part of G-d's original plan for the world.

"Sacrifice and offering You have not desired, but a body You have prepared for me" (Hebrews 10:5 referring to Psalms 40:6).

In verse 10 of our passage from Hebrews, we are told that the body spoken of refers to the body of Jesus. However, the Greek Testament took some great liberties in quoting from the book of Psalms, which never mentions a body being prepared:

"Sacrifice and meal offering You have not desired; my ears You have opened; Burnt offerings and sin offerings You have not required" (Psalm 40:6).

The author of Romans asserts that the Jewish scriptures spoke about the Messiah coming in order to eradicate sin from Israel:

"And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written,`The deliverer will come from Zion and remove ungodliness from Jacob'." (Romans 11:26 citing Isaiah 59:20)

However, checking the original source in Isaiah reveals the flawed foundation of the claim made in the book of Romans.

"And a redeemer will come to Zion, to those in Jacob who turn from transgression, says the L-rd."

Isaiah didn't teach that the Messiah's purpose is to remove sin; rather, he will come to the Jewish people when they show themselves worthy by turning away from sin.
WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY ABOUT VICARIOUS ATONEMENT?

One wonders why throughout the four Gospels, Jesus never speaks about his death serving as a sacrifice to atone for the sins of the world. Is the idea that an innocent person can be killed instead of those who are guilty consistent with what the Bible teaches? After the sin of the Golden Calf, G-d expressed His intention to destroy the Jewish people. Moses intercedes, and offers to die in their place. In response, G-d says "Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book!" (Exodus 32:32-33). Throughout the Bible, G-d says that one person cannot die for the sins of another:

"Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin" (Deuteronomy 24:16, II Kings 14:6).
"But everyone will die for his own sin; each man who eats sour grapes, his teeth will be set on edge" (Jeremiah 31:30).
"The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself" (Ezekiel 18:20).
"No man can by any means redeem his brother, or give to G-d a ransom for him" (Psalms 49:7).
"So you shall not pollute the land in which you are; for blood pollutes the land and no expiation can be made for the land for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who has shed it!" (Numbers 35:33).

Although Romans 4:5 says that Jesus justifies the ungodly, the Tanach teaches that "He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the righteous, both of them are an abomination to theL-rd" (Proverbs 17:15).
If indeed, Jesus came as the final sacrifice to atone for the sins of the world, why does the Tanach predict that the Temple will be rebuilt and sacrifices resumed?

"Even those I will bring to My holy mountain, and make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be acceptable on My altar; for My house will be called a house of prayer for all the peoples." (Isaiah 56:7). "From beyond the rivers of Ethiopia My worshipers, My dispersed ones will bring My offerings." (Zephaniah 3:10)
"All the flocks of Kedar will be gathered together to you, the rams of Nebaioth will minister to you; they will go up with acceptance on My altar, and I shall glorify My glorious house." (Isaiah 60:7)
"And I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will place them and multiply them, and will set My sanctuary in their midst forever." (Ezekiel 37:26)
"And He will sit as a smelter and purifier of silver, and He will purify the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, so that they may present to the L-rd offerings in righteousness. Then the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasant to the L-rd, as in the days of old and as in former years." (Malachi 3:3-4)
"And every cooking pot in Jerusalem and in Judah will be holy to the L-rd of hosts; and all who sacrifice will come and take of them and boil in them." (Zechariah 14:21) "And it shall be the princes part to provide the burnt offerings, the grain offerings, and the libations...to make atonement for the house of Israel." (Ezekiel 45:17)

The Christian claim that our sins can only be forgiven if blood is shed on our behalf also seems to limit the power of G-d. It's ludicrous to say that G-d`s ability to forgive us is dependent on anything. One of the most basic teachings in the Bible is that since G-d is merciful, He often forgives us simply because He is merciful. "Who is a G-d like You, who pardons iniquity and passes over the rebellious act of the remnant of His possession? He does not retain His anger forever, because He delights in unchanging love." (Micah 7:18; cf.Psalm 103:7-18). Even when we don't seek G-d appropriately, He has the ability to reach out to us with love and forgive us:

"Their heart was not steadfast toward Him, nor were they faithful in His covenant. But He, being compassionate, forgave their iniquity...remembering that they were but flesh." (Psalms 78:36-39)
"You have not brought Me the sheep of your burnt offerings...or the fat of your sacrifices, but you have burdened Me with your sins...Nevertheless, I will wipe out your transgressions for My own sake, and I will not remember your sins." (Isaiah 43:23-25)

THE BIBLICAL VIEW OF ATONEMENT

One of the clearest indications that Christianity is off base in its insistence on the centrality of blood sacrifices is that none of the prophets speaks about it. There isn't one instance in the prophetic books where the Jewish people are told that in order to get right with G-d they need to get covered by the blood. If that's the case, what is the fundamental teaching of the Tanach on the issue of atonement? What theme is reiterated time and again by the holy prophets in the Jewish Bible?

"That every man will turn from his evil way, then I will forgive their iniquity and their sin." (Jeremiah 36:3).
"Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and let him return to the L-rd, and He will have compassion on him; and to our G-d, for He will abundantly pardon." (Isaiah 55:7).
"I acknowledged my sin to You, and my iniquity I did not hide; I said, `I will confess my transgressions to the L-rd', and You did forgive the guilt of my sin." (Psalm 32:5).
"And if My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray, and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." (II Chronicles 7:14). "But if the wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed and observes all My statutes and practices justice and righteousness, he shall surely live; he shall not die. All his transgressions which he has committed will not be remembered against him; because of the righteousness which he has practiced he shall live...When a wicked man turns away from his wickedness which he has committed and practices justice and righteousness, he will save his life...Repent and turn away from all your transgressions, so that iniquity may not become a stumbling block to you (Ezekiel 18:21- 22,27,30).
"By lovingkindness and truth iniquity is atoned for..." (Proverbs 16:6).
"If you return to G-d you will be restored; if you remove unrighteousness far from your tent...then you will delight in G-d..." (Job 22:23-27).
"Depart from evil, and do good, so you will abide forever." (Psalm 37:27, cf. Ezekiel 33, Zechariah 1:3, Jeremiah 26:13).

The central teaching of the Bible is that only a break with our past and a sincere turning in repentance can restore our relationships with G-d. If I go off the path, I have to put myself back on track, and G-d will forgive me. Even when sacrifices were offered, they in and of themselves didn't effect atonement. The sacrifice was part of the process, it helped bring us to the core of atonement which is achieved by TESHUVAH, returning to G-d by forsaking our evil ways and praying for forgiveness. One of the main teachings of the prophets was to chide Jewish people who thought that sacrifices were the essential element of atonement:

"What are your multiplied sacrifices to Me? says the L-rd. I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed cattle. And I take no pleasure in the blood of bulls, lambs, or goats...Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your deeds from My sight. Cease to do evil, Learn to do good; seek justice, reprove the ruthless, defend the orphan, plead for the widow. Come let us reason together says the L-rd, `Though your sins are as scarlet, they will be white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they will be like wool, if you consent and obey..." (Isaiah 1:11-18).
"The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the L-rd." (Proverbs 15:8).
"To do righteousness and justice is more acceptable to the L-rd than sacrifice." (Proverbs 21:3). "For I delight in loyalty rather than sacrifice, and in the knowledge of G-d rather than burnt offerings." (Hoseah 6:6).
"Has the L-rd as great a delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the L-rd? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken more than the fat of rams." (I Samuel 15:22).
"With what shall I come to the L-rd, and bow myself before the G-d on high? Shall I come to Him with burnt offerings, with yearling calves? Does the L-rd take delight in thousands of rams, in ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I present my firstborn for my rebellious acts, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the L-rd require of you but to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your G-d." (Micah 6:6-8,cf. Amos 5:22- 24, Jeremiah 7, Psalm 69:31-32).

Since repentance, and not blood is the Biblical form of atonement, we now understand how in I Kings 8, Solomon explained that even if the Jewish people don't have access to the Temple, they still have access to G-d. This will illuminate a famous story found in the book of Jonah. G-d sends Jonah to the evil city of Ninveh to warn them of their impending destruction. Jonah doesn't come into the city and tell the people that unless they begin offering sacrifices they are doomed. Their response to his warnings is to repent: they fast, pray, and turn from their evil. What is G-d's response?

"When G-d saw their deeds that they turned from their wicked way, then G-d relented concerning the calamity which He had declared He would bring upon them, and He did not do it." (Jonah 3:10).

In similar fashion, Daniel advised king Nebuchadnezzar on how to atone for his transgressions:

"Therefore, O king, may my advice be pleasing to you: Redeem your sins by doing righteousness, and your iniquities by showing mercy to the poor." (Daniel 4:27).

This principle will also help explain a passage in the book of Hoseah. Hoseah was a prophet to the 10 northern tribes in the kingdom of Israel during a time when there was a civil war going on between them and the two tribes of the kingdom of Judah in the south. Because of the strife, the tribes up north couldn't get to the Temple in Jerusalem to offer sacrifices. Did this leave them with no way of atoning for their sins? The prophet advises:

"Return, O Israel, to the L-rd your G-d, For you have stumbled because of your iniquity. Take words with you and return to the L-rd. Say to Him, `Take away all iniquity, and receive us graciously, for we will render as bullocks the offerings of our lips'." (Hoseah 14:1-2).

We are able to approach G-d directly with prayer, which is possible at all times; and G-d assures us that sincere prayer can achieve forgiveness for our sins:

"Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O L-rd, the G-d of my salvation. And my tongue shall sing aloud of Your righteousness. O L-rd, open my lips, and my mouth shall show forth Your praise. For You do not delight in burnt offerings. The sacrifices of G-d are a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart. These, O G-d, You will not despise." (Psalms 51:14-17, re:II Samuel 12:13).
"I will praise the name of G-d with a song, and will magnify Him with thanksgiving. This shall please the L-rd better than an ox or bullock that has horns and hoofs." (Psalm 69:30-31).
"For You, L-rd, are good, and ready to forgive, and abundant in lovingkindness to all who call upon You. Give ear, O L-rd to my prayer, and give heed to the voice of my supplications." (Psalm 86:5-6).
"And listen to the supplications of Your servant and of Your people Israel, when they pray toward this place; hear from heaven Your dwelling place, hear and forgive." (II Chronicles 6:21).

Are Christians consistent with the Jewish Bible when they claim that atonement is only possible with a blood sacrifice? Did the Rabbis just make up the idea that we can restore our relationship with G-d through prayer and repentance? YOU DECIDE!

[Zamtsa]

Though Allah stayed his hand, for what purpose, beyond a test of obedience, was Ibrahim's sacrifice of Ishamael to be enacted?

The Jews believed in and practiced blood atonement based on instructions that God gave to Moses preserved in verses like this:


Are you proposing that this too was of pagan origin and not Allah's direction?

Al Hajj (22):37 It is not their meat nor their blood that reaches Allah: it is your piety that reaches Him: He has thus made them subject to you that ye may glorify Allah for His guidance to you: and proclaim the Good News to all who do right.

[Grace Seeker]

The Qur'an is not alone in such statements; Jewish prophets had previously provided a correction to the misuse of sacrifices by those who thought that the mere repeitition of them had meaning to God:

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

Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but my ears you have pierced;
burnt offerings and sin offerings
you did not require. (Psalm 40:6)

21I hate, I despise your feast days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies.

22Though ye offer me burnt offerings and your meat offerings, I will not accept them: neither will I regard the peace offerings of your fat beasts.

23Take thou away from me the noise of thy songs; for I will not hear the melody of thy viols.

24But let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream. (Amos 5:21-24)

Still, such statements doesn't negate that God did give the command to Moses, but they are a reminder that doing them is not to replace a heart turned toward God.

[doorster]

out of context distortion (same as a lie as it has been trimmed from both ends to suite the fancy of pagans or polytheists or fraudsters)
For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.(Leviticus 17:11)

in context (possibly true as it is older than the above lie, which is taken out from middle of the passage)

"And whatever man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who sojourn among you, who consumes any blood, I will set My face against that person who consumes blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul. Therefore, I say to the children of Israel, `No one among you shall consume blood, nor shall any stranger who sojourns among you consume blood.'"

What should immediately be apparent is that the topic of this passage is not how to secure atonement from sins, but the prohibition against consuming blood.

The Qur'an is not alone in such statements; Jewish prophets had previously provided a correction to the misuse of sacrifices by those who thought that the mere repeitition of them had meaning to God:






Still, such statements doesn't negate that God did give the command to Moses, but they are a reminder that doing them is not to replace a heart turned toward God.

only on LI, will such trickery be tolerated and with such lamentably inadequate level of moderation (refereeing to make sure that people are playing fair) I give up

http://www.islamicboard.com/1081643-post45.html

[Grace Seeker]

only on LI, will such trickery be tolerated and with such lamentably inadequate level of moderation (refereeing to make sure that people are playing fair) I give up

This is comparative religion, emphasis on the comparative part. There is no trickery involved, I don't even know what trick it is that you might be accusing me of. All I know is that it has been asserted that any concept of blood atonement is pagan in origin. I and others have tried to show that it was a part of Jewish worship and practice, and that these Jews believed that it came from God through his commands to Moses. You then showed how Allah recognizes sacrifices but the import of them doesn't come from the sacrifice itself, but from the heart directed toward Allah. (Or at least that is what I understood from what you presented.) And I responded by showing this to be the same within Judaism, but asserting that this doesn't change the understanding that God initiated and called for the actions as well.

Your point that the verse in question is not so much about blood atonement as it is about not eating blood is much better taken. I would agree that not eating blood is the larger issue of the verse. But I still see contained within this larger view the assertion that such as thing as blood atonement does in fact exist. Without the pre-existing concept of blood atonement being acceptable to God, it makes no sense it to be mentioned in the explanation of the rules regarding the avoidance of consuming blood. Given that God, not Moses, is presented as the author of this commentary, then it follows that this passage presents the idea of blood atonement as originating with God and not pagan societies which may have also adopted it. The other option, one I'm sure that our atheist friends might find more compelling, is that Moses (or some other scribe) merely injected these thoughts that he had copied from paganism into the passage and made them look like they had come from God. This, of course, fits with the Islamic idea that all other scripture but their own is tampered with. But that is a different subject.

[Zamtsa]

This is comparative religion, emphasis on the comparative part. There is no trickery involved, I don't even know what trick it is that you might be accusing me of. All I know is that it has been asserted that any concept of blood atonement is pagan in origin. I and others have tried to show that it was a part of Jewish worship and practice, and that these Jews believed that it came from God through his commands to Moses. You then showed how Allah recognizes sacrifices but the import of them doesn't come from the sacrifice itself, but from the heart directed toward Allah. (Or at least that is what I understood from what you presented.) And I responded by showing this to be the same within Judaism, but asserting that this doesn't change the understanding that God initiated and called for the actions as well.

Your point that the verse in question is not so much about blood atonement as it is about not eating blood is much better taken. I would agree that not eating blood is the larger issue of the verse. But I still see contained within this larger view the assertion that such as thing as blood atonement does in fact exist. Without the pre-existing concept of blood atonement being acceptable to God, it makes no sense it to be mentioned in the explanation of the rules regarding the avoidance of consuming blood. Given that God, not Moses, is presented as the author of this commentary, then it follows that this passage presents the idea of blood atonement as originating with God and not pagan societies which may have also adopted it. The other option, one I'm sure that our atheist friends might find more compelling, is that Moses (or some other scribe) merely injected these thoughts that he had copied from paganism into the passage and made them look like they had come from God. This, of course, fits with the Islamic idea that all other scripture but their own is tampered with. But that is a different subject.

the 5 books of OT was not written by Muusa 'alaihi Salaam, not from anybody I got that impression, from the sentence I founded on the last page of the book, which told "Moses died... ....." Muusa 'alaihi Salaam couldn't be living to write about his death.

[Imam]

the 5 books of OT was not written by Muusa 'alaihi Salaam, not from anybody I got that impression, from the sentence I founded on the last page of the book, which told "Mosed died... ....." Muusa 'alaihi Salaam couldn't be living to write about his death.

yes brother Abdul Thayyib .....

I'm writing a post directed at grace-seeker and such point you mentioned is included in...


I hope seeker ,wait till I finish the post ...
and comment on both of us......


the authority of Leviticus 17:11 is not the only problem to the believe of the blood atonement but also several others will be highlighted in my next post inshaAllah....

grace-seeker ..be patient to have the full vision...


peace

[Grace Seeker]

grace-seeker ..be patient to have the full vision...

No problem. I would play the theme to Jeopardy (from the final question round) as you write, but I wouldn't want to be insulting to those who understand music as haraam.:D

[Imam]

Some reasons not to believe in the (blood for sin) dogma

The Jews believed in and practiced blood atonement based on instructions that God gave to Moses preserved in verses like this:


Are you proposing that this too was of pagan origin and not Allah's direction?

Exactly, I propose that the concept of Leviticus 17:11 based on both Paganism and the priests intent upon protecting their turf and ensuring their livelihood with a continual supply of food that they would take from the altar sacrifices.....

Details:


Who wrote the Leviticus ?


- The Pentateuch(including the Leviticus ) in its present form does not present itself as a complete literary production of Moses. It contains an account of Moses' death, it tells the story of his life in the third person and in an indirect form, and the last four books do not exhibit the literary form of memoirs of the great lawgiver; besides, the expression "God said to Moses" does not prove that Moses himself codified in the Pentateuch the various laws promulgated by him. (The catholic encyclopedia)



- Deuteronomy 34:10 This states "There has never been another prophet like Moses..."a passage written long after Moses' death

- from the very early time ,some rabbis and philosophers asked how Moses could have described his own death, or given a list of the kings of Edom before those kings ever lived,Among the more recent Jewish writers several have adopted the results of the critics, thus abandoning the tradition of their forefathers.

- "..there is hardly a biblical scholar in the world actively working on the [authorship] problem who would claim that the Five Books of Moses were written by Moses." R.E. Friedman.


- Leviticus is principally about priestly ritiuals and rules. It is considered to be almost entirely by the Priestly source, written during or after the Babylonian Exile of the sixth century BCE."Testament: the Bible and History", by John Romer (1996).


- biblical scholars have regarded Leviticus as being almost entirely a product of the priestly source, originating amongst the Aaronid priesthood c 550-400 BC. Leviticus consists of several layers of laws. The base of this accretion is the Holiness Code, regarded as an early independent document with a faint relationship with the Covenant Code presented earlier in the bible.
Wellhausen regarded the Priestly source as a later, rival, version of the stories contained within JE, the Holiness Code thus being the law code that the priestly source presented as being dictated to Moses at Sinai, in the place of the Covenant Code. Different writers inserted laws, some from earlier independent collections. These additional laws, in critical scholarship, are those which subsequently formed the Priestly Code, and thus the other portion of Leviticus." (Wikipedia)


- From what has been said concerning the absence of ch. xvi. from the Pentateuch of Nehemiah it is clear that some of the material of Leviticus was added to it later than Nehemiah's time. It is probable that P in its main features was in the hands of Ezra and Nehemiah. Leviticus is, however, not the work of the P who wrote the account of the sacred institutions, but of an editor who dislocated that work at many points, and who combined with it the Holiness Code and other elements.(Jewish Encyclopedia)




Who adopted who,Jews or Pagans?


- Animal sacrifices were common throughout the Ancient Near East, as well as some of the Mediterranean islands. For example the Minoan culture of Phaistos on Crete reveals basins for animal sacrifice dating to the period 2000 to 1700 BC.
The practice of sacrifice is found in the oldest human records. The archaeological record contains human and animal corpses with sacrificial marks long before any written records of the practice. Sacrifices are a common theme in most religions, though the frequency of animal, and especially human(Wikipedia)

- Maimonides, a medieval Jewish scholar, drew on the early critiques of the need for sacrifice, taking the view that God always held sacrifice inferior to prayer and philosophical meditation. However, God understood that the Israelites were used to the animal sacrifices that the surrounding pagan tribes used as the primary way to commune with their gods. As such, in Maimonides' view, it was only natural that Israelites would believe that sacrifice would be a necessary part of the relationship between God and man. Maimonides concludes that God's decision to allow sacrifices was a concession to human psychological limitations. It would have been too much to have expected the Israelites to leap from pagan worship to prayer and meditation in one step. In his Guide to the Perplexed he writes:
"But the custom which was in those days general among men, and the general mode of worship in which the Israelites were brought up consisted in sacrificing animals... It was in accordance with the wisdom and plan of God...that God did not command us to give up and to discontinue all these manners of service. For to obey such a commandment would have been contrary to the nature of man, who generally cleaves to that to which he is used; it would in those days have made the same impression as a prophet would make at present [the 12th Century] if he called us to the service of God and told us in His name, that we should not pray to God nor fast, nor seek His help in time of trouble; that we should serve Him in thought, and not by any action." (Book III, Chapter 32. Translated by M. Friedlander, 1904, The Guide for the Perplexed, Dover Publications, 1956 edition.)


obviously The Jewish writer is aware of the pagan connection with the blood for sin animal sacrifice, but as A Jew he tried his best to reason how God would order pagan based practice........

anyway
is there any other explanation why would the Leviticus contain such laws if not truly inspired from God?

2 keys


1- The Babylonian(and other pagans) influence on the Levitical ritual.

2- priests looking to ensure their livelihood.



- It is commonly supposed that the priestly laws were collected in Babylonia and were brought back to Palestine by Ezra. Haupt goes so far as to claim that the Levitical ritual is influenced by Babylonian institutions (comp. Haupt, "Babylonian Elements in the Levitical Ritual," in "Jour. Bib. Lit." xix. 55-81)(Jewish Encyclopedia)

- The third paragraph of section vi lists the physical defects which bar a man from serving as a priest,a similar rule in Babylonia kept priests with bodily defects from active services .The Origin And History Of Hebrew Law
By J. M. Powis Smith



- For more than 25 centuries, we Jews have stood atremble before the highest of benches during the first days of the seventh lunar month, which we call Tishrei. The peculiar rites we perform during the Ten Days of Penitence are designed to ensure us another year of life. That, at least, is the belief of the 15% of Jews who think that God simply dictated the Torah and all Jewish laws — even those laws promulgated by the rabbis in the Middle Ages — to Moses at Mount Sinai. The remaining 85% of us, however, might be comforted to know that Jews haven’t been the only nation performing such elaborate rituals of sin-purging around this time of year.… We might have our Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur in the month of Tishrei, but our extinct Babylonian cousins celebrated Akitu and Kuppuru in the month of Tashritu. Many differences of ritual and theology existed between Babylonians and Jews. While the Babylonians worshipped a pantheon of gods led by Marduk, we have only one. Our autumnal High Holy Days last 10 days, but they had 12. But the parallels are truly intriguing. First there is the obvious similarity of names above. Secondly, both Jews and Babylonians saw the beginning of the seventh month as the world’s birthday. Third, both observed two New Year celebrations, just as the Torah instructs us; the other was held at the onset of the first month, Nisanu, just before our Passover. Fourth is the Kuppuru rite, in which a ritually slaughtered animal carcass is deployed and its blood scattered to purge demons and clear impurities from the temple of Marduk for the upcoming year, much as ancient Israel’s high priest did in the Yom Kippur ritual recalled in our late-morning Avodah service. While some of us might regard the jury as still out on the efficacy of the carcass in demon-purging, there is a further, striking parallel to Yom Kippur’s scapegoat ritual as described in Leviticus 16. Our ancestors borrowed a great deal from a towering, imperial Mesopotamian culture that for centuries dominated the Fertile Crescent. That we used Babylonian calendar names is widely known. Semitic peoples had used the lunar calendar from time immemorial, but named their months differently. What the (Hebrew-speaking) Canaanites called Aviv, Ziv, Eytanim and Bul, the practical-minded Hebrews first renamed months One, Two, Seven and Eight. The Babylonians called them Nisanu, Ayaru, Tashritu and Archasamnu. In time, our ancestors replaced their numerals with the Babylonian names, many of which are named in honor of Mesopotamian gods. Yet it wasn’t only Nisan, Iyar, Tishrei and Marchesvan that our ancestors borrowed from the Babylonians. Our forefathers took Akitu and the ritual of Kuppuru and reshaped them in their own monotheistic image into what eventually became Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. For centuries, Israelites had two main festivals: Sukkot in the fall and Pesach in the spring — seasonal harvest festivals adopted and adapted from their Canaanite neighbors. New moons were also observed throughout the Levant, as they are today by observant Jews. The new moon on the seventh month, however, was considered, to paraphrase a more recent Mesopotamian dictator, the mother of new moons.
What made the new moon of the seventh month special? Most of all, it was the number seven, which seems to hold deep significance throughout the scriptures. The seventh day is the Sabbath. The seventh year is the Sabbatical Year, while seven years squared is the Jubilee. Even the Yom Kippur rite involves seven splatters of blood. The new moon of the seventh month would likewise have been seen as important.…
Our Pagan Yom Kippur (The day of atonement)By David A.M. Wilensky

In "Yahweh's Quails.", we looked at what Yahweh's "inspired" word said about a near food riot when the people grew weary of manna and demanded meat to eat. the people bellyached at the lack of meat in their diet, but we could hardly suppose that the priests had any complaints. This is because the priests were required to eat many of the sacrifices after they had been offered: "And Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying, Speak to Aaron and to his sons, saying, This is the law of the sin-offering. In the place where the burnt-offering is killed shall the sin-offering be killed before Yahweh. It is most holy. The priest that offers it for sin shall eat it. In the holy place shall it be eaten, in the court of the tent of meeting" (Lev. 6:24-27). Of sacrifices boiled in earthen vessels, "every male among the priests shall eat thereof; it is most holy" (v:29). Every male among the priests shall eat thereof? Well, that would have been four at the most, Aaron and his two sons Eleazar and Ithamar, and then later Eleazar's son Phinehas (Num. 25:10-13).

The same commandment applied to "trespass-offerings." The priest was to "burn them upon the altar" (Lev. 7:5), and then "every male among the priests shall eat thereof; it shall be eaten in a holy place. It is most holy" (v:6). Every male among the priests were to eat of it? Well, there really wasn't much danger that some female priest might eat it, was there? Anyway, if the people were to have meat coming out of their nostrils after the quail episode, with the number of sacrifices that only four priests had to officiate at and dispose of, the priests undoubtedly had meat coming out of every orifice. We have already seen that each priest would have had to officiate at 45 birth-purification sacrifices each day in a population of 3 million that had remained stable over a period of 40 years. But this was only one of many types of sacrifices. In the Hebrew sacrificial system a sin offering had to be offered each year in remembrance of individual sins (Heb. 10:3). Yahweh was apparently considerate enough not to hold children responsible for their conduct (Num. 14:31-33; Deut. 1:39), but if we assume that about 50% of the wilderness population were adults who would have had to sacrifice sin-offerings in order to comply with Yahweh's law, this would mean that about 1.5 million sin offerings were made each year, even if we allow only one such offering per year per adult. Leviticus 4:1-12 indicates that such offerings were to be made whenever one sinned "unwittingly," so as complicated as Yahweh's legal system was, this could have easily necessitated several sin-offerings per year for most people. However, in deference to Hebrews 10:3 (cited above) and to give inerrantists every benefit of the doubt, we will assume that an adult offered a sin-offering only once per year. These 1.5 million sin offerings per year would have averaged 4,110 per day or 171 every hour of every day. If these were divided evenly among the four priests, each priest would have officiated at 43 sacrifices per hour, if all four of them worked around the clock throughout the year without even taking time to sleep. That would have been quite a task even with an altar a piece for the priests, but, in fact, there was only one altar in the tabernacle (where all offerings had to be made), so this altar would have had to accommodate all 171 sacrifices per hour, that were being offered each hour of every day.
How the priests could have managed this is inconceivable, especially since the sin-offering was a bullock, whose offal had to be carried 1.5 miles BY the priests to be burned outside the camp (Lev. 4:11-12). All this would have been in addition to the birth-purification sacrifices already mentioned, which would have averaged about 45 per day, per priest, and the "trespass-offerings" and meal offerings and burnt-offerings, etc., etc., etc. ad infinitum. The situation is further complication by the fact that the priests were to eat the sin-offerings after they were sacrificed (Lev. 6:24-26), so in addition to officiating at 171 sin-offerings every hour of every day, killing the animal at the altar; separating the fat, kidneys, liver, and other parts that were to be sacrificed on the altar; carrying the offal 1.5 miles to the outside of the camp and burning it, the priests also had to eat the parts that were sacrificed on the altar. Needless to say, weight problems must have plagued those poor priests, but perhaps the excess weight was worked off by the exercise involved in wagging the offal of 43 bullocks 1.5 miles each hour of every day to burn it outside the camp.
Common sense tells us--with the exception of biblical inerrantists--that just four priests could not have eaten all the meat that would have been offered by 1.5 million people offering the sacrifices required of them in these passages. The book of Leviticus has all the earmarks of having been written at a much later date by a priest or priests intent upon protecting their turf and ensuring their livelihood with a continual supply of food that they would take from the altar sacrifices. Unfortunately, these priests made the mistake of putting their sacrificial laws into a setting that made them logistically nonsensical. Anyone who doubts that this book was written by priests looking to ensure their livelihood should read Leviticus carefully (assuming that the boredom can be endured) with a view to noticing how many times the author(s) took care to point out what the priests' share should be of the sacrifices that were brought to the altar. Only a very gullible person could believe that this book accurately portrayed how sacrifices were offered by 3 million people in a desert wilderness and officiated over by just three or four priests. At Least the Priests Had Meat
by Farrell Till

The blood for sin dogma and morality:

A-being unjust

- The dogma is not only a denial of the Mercy of God but also of His Justice. To demand the price of blood in order to forgive the sins of men is to show a complete lack of mercy, and to punish a man who is not guilty for the sins of others, whether the former is willing or not, is the height of injustice.

B- A tool to destroy morality:


No doubt there nothing encouraging to commit sins than believing in such concept .....

and we won't go so far ,The bible itself affirms the negative results of such dogma...

as it encouraged most of the Jews not to act in accord with the precepts of the Torah

Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but my ears you have pierced;
burnt offerings and sin offerings
you did not require. (Psalm 40:6)


With what shall I approach the Lord,
Do homage to God on high?
Shall I approach Him with burnt offerings,
With calves a year old?
Would the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams,
With myriads of streams of oil?
Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression,
The fruit of my body for my sins?
Man has told you what is good.
But what does the Lord require of you?
Only to do justice
And to love goodness,
And to walk humbly with your God (Micah 6:6-8).


Now let's pause and think for a while...

Are we to believe that . (Leviticus 17:11)it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. and (Micah 6:6-8) for human transgression The Lord require ONLY to do justice And to love goodness,
came from the same source(God)?

Wasn't he satisfied by their corrupted mortality?
yes, he is

but they are not to be blamed ....as he should harvest what he plants....

If he ever give them a blood for sin deal in the right hand , he should expect immorality from their part in return....

It seems that Only a gullible person who would believe that , after Yahweh had showed his true desire not the Sacrifice and offering but justice And to love goodness, would change his mind and be back again to his
(blood for sins) !!!!

but now the dogma been developed to be more damaging to morality...
It is not an animal washed some of your sins...it is someone washed all your sins and in advance !!!!

[ninetrey]

esselamu aleikum

so it is possible that isa (sas) is coming back to earth to bring justice??????
i acually thought muhammad (sas) was the last prophet and the seal?

[Grace Seeker]

Some reasons not to believe in the (blood for sin) dogma







Exactly, I propose that the concept of Leviticus 17:11 based on both Paganism and the priests intent upon protecting their turf and ensuring their livelihood with a continual supply of food that they would take from the altar sacrifices.....

OK. If that is what you think, then that is what you think. You may even be right. But if so, it would seem that Ibrahim was just as influenced by that pagan culture as Abraham was. So, where does that leave us?

[Imam]

it would seem that Ibrahim was just as influenced by that pagan culture as Abraham was.

So you guess that the trial of God for Abraham and his son was an act of blood atonement similar to that of the Leviticus ?


Indeed ,it would be a false analogy between both the acts....


the slaughter been offered in the story of Abraham and his son was in the place of the obedient son

while the slaughter been offered in Leviticus was to atone the transgressor


God was testing Abraham to see if he would actually kill his own son, as a test of his loyalty. by no mean it was an act of blood atonement....

Just who atoned who in the story?!!

so it is possible that isa (sas) is coming back to earth to bring justice??????
i acually thought muhammad (sas) was the last prophet and the seal?

:sl:
That is Islamic topic... and the thread is discussing other issues


anyway A true Muslim who busy his mind basically with how to bring justice at least with himself and his family ....if everyone of us begins with himself ...justice would prevail in the community ...

peace

[Zamtsa]

esselamu aleikum

so it is possible that isa (sas) is coming back to earth to bring justice??????
i acually thought muhammad (sas) was the last prophet and the seal?

Wa 'ilaikas salaam wa rahmatullahi wa barakaatuh.

I've read from Bukhari or Muslim, Ibn Mas'ud Radhiyallahu 'anhu said: that this ayat " An Nisa(4):159 And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in him before his death; and on the Day of Judgment He will be a witness against them.

Talk about the dead of Almasih Iisa Ibn Maryam Rasulullah 'alaihi Salaam after his descend near Al Qiyamah. He was not dead:


An Nisa(4):158 Nay Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power Wise.

He will be judge who will use Al Qur'an and As Sunnah.

Sunan of Abu-DawoodHadith Narrated by Abu Hurayrah


The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: There is no prophet between me and him, that is, Jesus (peace be upon him). He will descend (to the earth). When you see him, recognise him: a man of medium height, reddish fair, wearing two light yellow garments, looking as if drops were falling down from his head though it will not be wet. He will fight the people for the cause of Islam. He will break the cross, kill swine, and abolish jizyah. Allah will perish all religions except Islam. He will destroy the Antichrist and will live on the earth for forty years and then he will die. The Muslims will pray over him.
(HR.Abu Daud (4324), Qishshah Ad Dajjal, Ash Shahihah (2182)


Assalamu'alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakaatuh.

[Grace Seeker]

So you guess that the trial of God for Abraham and his son was an act of blood atonement similar to that of the Leviticus ?

No, that is not what I was saying. You try to make a point that the whole concept of blood atonement is pagan in origin. Even though I point out that it is Biblical in origin, you say that this doesn't change your view because the Jews themselves copied it from pagans, that it was not something they received as a command from God.

But for Christians, the substutionary atonement of Christ is not just about blood atonment, though we certainly see elements of that in it. Rather it is a type of offering similar to that which Abraham/Ibrahim made of his son. Only this time the Father does not stay the hand of the executioner and Christ dies in submission to accomplish the atoning sacrifice (there is the connection with blood atonement) which, because his is a perfect offering, is once for all and needs not be repeated as the previous sacrifices had been.

The offering of Ishmael by Ibrahim or Isaac by Abraham have the same root. Both Jews and Muslims claim that it is an act of obedience to God. But the understanding of why he should do this, and what an offering was, be it Abraham or Ibrahim that we are talking about has to come from somewhere. So, what was the context in which Abraham/Ibrahim would understand what God was asking of him? It was the context of the world in which he lived. You claim this practice to be a practice of pagan origin with respect to the Jews. And if the only context in which Abraham could understand this request from God to offer his son as a sacrifice was the ritual sacrifices of pagan cultures -- at least that is what I am understanding you to have said -- then, since Abraham and Ibrahim are the same person, then the only context in which Ibrahim could understand this request from God to offer his son as a sacrifice was the ritual sacrifices of pagan cultures. That is why I said: "it would seem that Ibrahim was just as influenced by that pagan culture as Abraham was."

Given that Ibrahim and Abraham are the same person, it would seem to be hard to deny that. You may wish to argue that Ibrahim was not influenced by pagan cultures, I would merely suggest that if that is true, then it follows that Abraham was not either. And if subsequent understandings of sacrifice, especially with regard to Christ, are derived from Abraham's offering, then those understandings are no more pagan than Abraham's was.

[Imam]

You try to make a point that the whole concept of blood atonement is pagan in origin.
.

and you try to put something(the test of Abraham and his son )irrelevant to the issue of the blood atonement....

And if the only context in which Abraham could understand this request from God to offer his son as a sacrifice was the ritual sacrifices of pagan cultures.

you mean Abraham could have guessed that God moved him to make a ritual similar to the ritual sacrifices of pagan cultures?

if that is true then Abraham would find out soon that he got it wrong and his God is not one of such pagan type gods who would appease their anger a human sacrifice of an innocent ,but the fact nothing ever took place at all of what he might ever have thought ....it was just a test of loyalty.....

why would the test take such form?

as nothing would be more precious for Abraham in life than his long awaited only son (logically would be Ismael,but that's not our issue).....
and that what makes the test to be the hardest......

as if God was saying

Abraham ... would you obey me to the point of losing the most precious thing in your life?

Abraham passed the test and God showed that he didn't have in his mind the need for the death of his son ......
If God's original intent was a sacrifice he would have let Abraham do it.....


If Allah the almighty let Abraham finish with the slaughter then we have all the right to condemn his order and accuse him of pagan type gods......
as only in paganism gods be satisfied with such acts....

obviously ,that was not the case..

he substitutionary atonement of Christ is not just about blood atonement,. Rather it is a type of offering similar to that which Abraham/Ibrahim made of his son.

again false analogy

Christians fail to realize that the story of Abraham is not even a hint of blood atonement
Just who atoned who,in the story?!!

zero atoned zero

What similarities? let's check

Christians claim that what Abraham made with his son have similarity with what God made with Jesus

that is untrue........

we have

Abraham and his son

versus

God and Jesus


1-Abraham was ordered by God to slaughter his son , but who ordered God to slaughter Jesus?

2-no doubt, from within himself as a merciful father ,Abraham wouldn't like to slaughter his only son ,but only began to do it to satisfy God......
in the case of Jesus God not only was pleased by the act but also there was none to satisfy by the act but himself.

3-being both obedient(Abraham and his son) God was pleased by their obedience and replaced The son with a sheep , the opposite is the case of Jesus(according to the NT) , none saved him from his ill fate...

the similarities only exists in the imagination of such Christians who imitate the dishonest approach of the gospel writers in dealing with the old testament ,as they continue the journey of seeking the non-existent ...

[Grace Seeker]

OK. I thank-you for taking the time to make your views more plain. On this we are going to have a difference with regard to how we view ancient history and what motivated different individuals. But I do accept your point, that at least to the Muslim, God never sought blood atonement from anyone.

I still believe that the Bible shows that the Jews practiced it because it was what God told them to do. But I understand you think those passages were corruptions as a result of pagan influences that crept into Judaism, and not what God actually told them to do. Without a time machine I don't suppose we have a way of verifying either view.

[Imam]

Without a time machine I don't suppose we have a way of verifying either view.

As for the Bible I found out that not only you needn't have a time machine to verify the validity of its content ,but not even you have to leave your study room !!!

If you find difficulty finding a time machine to verify the truthfulness of the Bible writers ...I would recommend you a fair,easy tool to do the job.....

it is the tool which the infamous bible fundamentalist G Archer uses ,it is:


If the biblical record can be proved fallible in areas of fact that can be verified, then it is hardly to be trusted in areas where it cannot be tested. As a witness for God, the Bible would be discredited as untrustworthy. What solid truth it may contain would be left as a matter of mere conjecture, subject to the intuition or canons of likelihood of each individual. An attitude of sentimental attachment to traditional religion may incline one person to accept nearly all the substantive teachings of Scripture as probably true. But someone else with equal justification may pick and chose whatever teachings in the Bible happen to appeal to him and lay equal claim to legitimacy. One opinion is as good as another. All things are possible, but nothing is certain if indeed the Bible contains mistakes or errors of any kind (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties.pp. 23 ).


you agree that the bible contains easily to be verified errors....

so you'd beter do the previous advice ,instead of seeking a time machine....


for example I'm not even interested to meet the writer of Matthew to know why he wrote his work this way.....

all what I need to compare his allegations with the Old Testament text....
and the same treatment would be treated the other Bible writers....

I by no mean be interested in what they had in their mind while writing.....

just what they have wrote.....and they have to be judged only according to what they wrote.....

[Grace Seeker]

it is the tool which the infamous bible fundamentalist G Archer uses ,it is:


If the biblical record can be proved fallible in areas of fact that can be verified, then it is hardly to be trusted in areas where it cannot be tested. As a witness for God, the Bible would be discredited as untrustworthy.

But I've never agreed with Archer. For instance, Archer holds that there was a 6-day creation because he believes that the bible says that to be so, an item of fact according to Archer. I don't believe that the Bible ever meant the Genesis description of creation to be taken literally, especially as we can see that there are two differenct creation accounts in Genesis itself. Genesis was merely asserting that creation is something that God does, and doesn't happen outside of his action and purposes. It also tells us that in the act of creating the world God sought to bring order out of chaos. But it doesn't tell us the exact "how" of creation as much as it tell us the "who" and "why". Archer believed that the earth was only a few thousand years old. Archer argues that if you aren't willing to accept that fact, then you can't trust the rest of the Bible. But his logic falters in the reality that the Bible had many different authors, not one. And whether a particular passage is to be taken as historical fact or communicating something else changes from book to book, and sometimes from passage to passage within a given book.

What this means is that one must take care to discriminate more between passages and not treat them all with equal weight, if what one is seeking is to use the Bible as an historical record, for while some of it is indeed history, not all of it was meant to be used that way. You cannot use the same biblical hermeutic on every passage of scripture and expect to understand them equally well. History, poetry, prophecy, parable, proclamation, and instruction (both public and personal) each type of literature needs to be treated accordingly. And I think you are wise enough to understand that, for I see you do it yourself when you read and interpret the Qur'an and Hadith.

[Zamtsa]

Abraham and his son

versus

God and Jesus


1-Abraham was ordered by God to slaughter his son , but who ordered God to slaughter Jesus?

2-no doubt, from within himself as a merciful father ,Abraham wouldn't like to slaughter his only son ,but only began to do it to satisfy God......
in the case of Jesus God not only was pleased by the act but also there was none to satisfy by the act but himself.

3-being both obedient(Abraham and his son) God was pleased by their obedience and replaced The son with a sheep , the opposite is the case of Jesus(according to the NT) , none saved him from his ill fate...

the similarities only exists in the imagination of such Christians who imitate the dishonest approach of the gospel writers in dealing with the old testament ,as they continue the journey of seeking the non-existent ...

What was right is that Allahu Subhanahu wa Ta'ala tested the people, whether they will surrender their love to Allahu Ta'ala and being patient with the fate of AlMasih Rasulullah who ascended to the sky, before his substitutioner got crucified, while he escaped from being crucified, but that substitutioner made appear by Allahu Subhanahu wa Ta'ala to be crucified instead and taken as AlMasih Rasulullah 'alaihi Shalawatu wa Salaam by them who knew not.


157 That they said (in boast) "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary the Apostle of Allah"; but they killed him not nor crucified him but so it was made to appear to them and those who differ therein are full of doubts with no (certain) knowledge but only conjecture to follow for of a surety they killed him not.
158 Nay Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power Wise.


And Allahu Tabaraka Ta'ala will descend him near the Damascus white tower:

159 And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in him before his death; and on the Day of Judgment He will be a witness against them.

Sunan of Abu-DawoodHadith Narrated by Abu Hurayrah


The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: There is no prophet between me and him, that is, Jesus (peace be upon him). He will descend (to the earth). When you see him, recognise him: a man of medium height, reddish fair, wearing two light yellow garments, looking as if drops were falling down from his head though it will not be wet. He will fight the people for the cause of Islam. He will break the cross, kill swine, and abolish jizyah. Allah will perish all religions except Islam. He will destroy the Antichrist and will live on the earth for forty years and then he will die. The Muslims will pray over him.
(HR.Abu Daud (4324), Qishshah Ad Dajjal, Ash Shahihah (2182)

[Zamtsa]

The Jesus in the Bible shouted "Eli, Eli lama sabachtani." Eli means my God.

Why didn't the crucified man said "Aba, Aba lama sabachtani?." Aba means father.

Why did Jesus in the Bible never said that he was going to sacrifice himself to human kind with "his blood,"?

Why did 'son of God'(in inverted comas) eaten and eat food? If God had/has a son wouldn't that man not as simbolically a food and wouldn't he be a non eating being?

In the Dead Sea Scrolls even written that he did Polygyny. He was married with more than 1 wife(Polygyny).


Assalamu manit taba'al huda(May peace be upon who follow the guidance).

[Grace Seeker]

In the Dead Sea Scrolls even written that he did Polygyny. He was married with more than 1 wife(Polygyny).

I think you are mistaken in this being in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Perhaps you meant some apocraphyl writing, but I don't think you mean the Dead Sea Scrolls; they date from a time prior to Jesus.

[Zamtsa]

The Dead Sea Scrolls was not only about the written things prior to Jesus. Because the excavation was stop for the reason that it was found a source in there which wrote that Almasih Jesus Ibn Maryam Rasulullah 'alaihi Shalawatu wa Salaam was doing Polygyny.

[Grace Seeker]

The Dead Sea Scrolls was not only about the written things prior to Jesus. Because the excavation was stop for the reason that it was found a source in there which wrote that Almasih Jesus Ibn Maryam Rasulullah 'alaihi Shalawatu wa Salaam was doing Polygyny.

They were discovered by Arabs and excuvated by Jews and secular scientists, why would any of them care about stories of Jesus and polygamy? Do you have any credible sources that you can cite regarding this information, because I've never befored heard any of this linked to the Dead Sea Scrolls.

[Zamtsa]

I heard it from Sanihu Munir read it. But anyway, I forget what was the name of the book. Sorry then.


May peace and development and save from guile be upon who follow the guidance

[Grace Seeker]

As a result of my reading I need to make a correction to what I had said before about the age of the Dead Sea Scrolls. While one of the major values of the scrolls was that it took us back to about 200 years before the time of Christ with regard to the scroll of Isaiah, the Essene community that existed at Qumran did exist during the time of Jesus. However, as is noted in the following websites, there is no established connection between Jesus and them. Nor is his name ever found in any of the texts there. If you are going to continue hold to this view, I think you need to do provide more substantiation than you have thus far.

Although the Qumran community existed during the time of the ministry of Jesus, none of the Scrolls refer to Him, nor do they mention any of His follower's described in the New Testament.

Source: 25 Fascinating Facts About the Dead Sea Scrolls

And in terms of the quest for the historical Jesus, what does the story of the Essenes tell us? What light does it cast on his life and times?

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and our growing knowledge of the Essene community that produced them, gives us one of the most important pieces of evidence for the diversity of Jewish life and thought in the time of Jesus. Now, it has sometimes been suggested that Jesus, himself, or maybe even John the Baptist, were members of this group. And that can't be proven at all. But what the Essenes and the Qumran scrolls do show us is the kind of challenges that could be brought against some of the traditional lines of Jewish thought, and even the operation of the Temple itself. So if one of our perspectives is that there is this growing tension in Jerusalem, the Essenes are probably the best example of how radical that questioning of Temple life might become.

Source: FRONTLINE: The Essenes and the Dead Sea Scrolls



The only thing that I can find that relates to Sanihu Munir and the subject you mention is Yahshua polygamy? [Tanggapan Terhadap DR. [Response of DR. Sanihu Munir] Munir Sanihu] , and even in this I don't find the reference to the Dead Sea Scrolls that you allude to. I'm guessing that you most likely misunderstood or perhaps remember incorrectly, as Munir does suggest that Jesus practiced polygamy from other sources, and does refer to the Dead Sea Scrolls to discuss other matters, but I don't see her suggesting that the Dead Sea Scrolls provide support for Jesus as a polygamist, there certainly no quoting of them for that purpose which leads me to believe that no reference is there.