The Central Flaw of Christianity (another article)

[Hamza Asadullah]

Clearly this is a misunderstanding then because you both thought you were referring to different posts so it is now resolved.

[Sol Invictus]

Oh, I see. Yes, that particular quote I did misattribute but he made his post in response to an entire, LONG exposition that he cheerfully ignored the rest of so as to focus on that one, single quote instead, and that's why I thought he was talking about the previous part. This is the rest, the thing he's been trying to distract you with for all this time by harping on the misattributed Grace Seeker quote which came at the very bottom (and which I didn't even know he was talking about):

He's trying to divert you from that. Don't let him.

umm, did you not see my response or will you casually dismiss it again. it is in fact you who only partially quoted me (when i had specifically asked for the full quote seeing as i knew that you might just try to be deceiving in such a manner). check out my refutation in my post #227 on page 16. are you going to claim now that i had never responded?

in fact, i'll even repost it here so that there won't be any confusion:

this will be a teaching moment i'm sure yahya. notice that i had asked you to quote my full post and lo and behold, you decided not to. let's see what i had actually said in full:

your claim was that the matter of original sin was relevant to my post. i disagreed yet gave you the option (as with any other participant in this thread) to actually quote from my post and show how my logic is predicated on the matter of original sin. so far neither you nor anyone else has done so. what i'm asking for is pretty simple. if my logic is predicated on the subject of original sin, why is it that you simply cannot quote for us the sections which only make sense when such a logic is appealed to. you keep wasting your precious health writing diatribe after diatribe when all you really need to show are the quotes from my post which are predicated on original sin. once again you're simply claiming things that you have not backed up. however, i certainly am glad that you have joined me in calling for a returned focus of my rebuttal towards you. this will certainly be entertaining.

(as it comes to original sin being the foundation of the doctrine for the atonement, i would disagree. you maintain that jews did not believe in original sin and yet they still went through with blood atonement so even if you now try to dodge the matter in such a manner you are still shown to be incorrect.)

notice that i refuted both ways in which one could possibly understand the question. in your post above you simply display the one which didn't have to do with your particular question and pretend that the other one didn't exist. better luck next time i suppose.

He asked for examples from PREVIOUS prophets, you ignored this and provided only quotes from CONTEMPORARY AND/OR SUBSEQUENT WRITERS, and after I pointed it out your next post ignored it altogether and continued acting like you'd been asking him for his evidence of biblical prophets period repeatedly and he was the one dodging you!

yes because isaiah is a contemporary prophet or subsequent prophet to christ:

in the same way will christ pay the final sacrifice with his own blood. hence why in isaiah 53 describes him like a lamb led to the slaughter (isaiah 53:7) and outrightly calls him a guilt offering (isaiah 53:10)---the very offering offered by the jews to gain forgiveness of sin. the above is why christ repeatedly predicts his death and resurrection and goes so far as to say that it is absolutely necessary:

so once again you have been refuted yahya.

[Sol Invictus]

Note again that this is what he continued pretending I said even after I called him on it, and when he said "those words aren't even mine", he really meant "the last few words aren't even mine", and was speaking as though they constituted the whole post

huh, did you not see the screenshots, i made an entire separate post to deal with your misattribution and as such i could in fact say, those words weren't mine because the entire post which i was responding to constituted of words you tried to pass off as my own.

[IAmZamzam]

That's not a response, it's another evasion. Even if the Isaiah passage were referring to Christ (P) (which I debunk in detail at this link), the mere fact of that doesn't change the fact that you were ignoring the real challenge hamza made at least once and making a point of responding only to a previous, less specific variation. That's what I pointed out, that's what you kept ignoring that you did (along with ignoring my exposition of your misrepresentation of what I said was predicated on original sin), and those are the lies you're still covering up now.

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

[Sol Invictus]

That's not a response, it's another evasion. Even if the Isaiah passage were referring to Christ (P) (which I debunk in detail at this link), the mere fact of that doesn't change the fact that you were ignoring the real challenge hamza made at least once and making a point of responding only to a previous, less specific variation. That's what I pointed out, that's what you kept ignoring that you did (along with ignoring my exposition of your misrepresentation of what I said was predicated on original sin), and those are the lies you're still covering up now.

this is amazing. were these not your words?: "He asked for examples from PREVIOUS prophets, you ignored this and provided only quotes from CONTEMPORARY AND/OR SUBSEQUENT WRITERS"

so when i completely disprove the above, the matter suddenly changes to that not having been the point? this is actually quite sad. the only person who has continued to misrepresent the other has been you.

[IAmZamzam]

huh, did you not see the screenshots, i made an entire separate post to deal with your misattribution and as such i could in fact say, those words weren't mine because the entire post which i was responding to constituted of words you tried to pass off as my own.

For a moment there you almost had one tiny, very irrelevant, point in your favor, but you just had to push your luck, didn't you? Here is the original quote from you (bottom) and here is my quoting it from you in the post that you now claim was ENTIRELY misattributions (also bottom). Care to do a screen capture of that?

[Woodrow]

I see more emotionalism than logic being expressed in about the last 5 pages. I do accept the fact that any debate concerning religion is going to evoke emotions among members of any faith. Quite possibly the only people who can engage in a religious debate without emotional feelings are atheists. With that said I am overlooking the past few pages and not doing a massive clean up by deleting the pages.

Now with that said let us all try to return to the topic on hand and fprget about any personal arguments that took place.

From what I see we had reached a point where a few somewhat related topics were being discussed those being:

1. The Crucifixion

2. Baptism

3. Blood atonement.

4. Original sin


In an attempt to direct this back to some sort of resemblance of order and the original topic I am tossing out this question:

If the Crucifixion redeemed mankind, of what value is baptism?

[YieldedOne]

Yo, Yahya Sulaiman.

Just gettin' your attention. After checking out your website, given in this thread, I saw your "The Koran's Challenge to Christians Who Believe in the Incarnation." I found it interesting and posted a response to it on the "Immortal/Mortal" thread. Give it a looksee, if you get a chance.

Later,
YO

[IAmZamzam]

this is amazing. were these not your words?: "He asked for examples from PREVIOUS prophets, you ignored this and provided only quotes from CONTEMPORARY AND/OR SUBSEQUENT WRITERS"

No, he didn't. He said UNEQUIVOCAL ones. Show me where the words "Jesus" or "Messiah" pops up in Isaiah 53.

when i completely disprove the above, the matter suddenly changes to that not having been the point? this is actually quite sad. the only person who has continued to misrepresent the other has been you.

My previous post shows just the opposite when it comes to who is lying about whom.

[Sol Invictus]

For a moment there you almost had one tiny, very irrelevant, point in your favor, but you just had to push your luck, didn't you? Here is the original quote from you (bottom) and here is my quoting it from you in the post that you now claim was ENTIRELY misattributions (also bottom). Care to do a screen capture of that?

did i not just quote this very post? did i not just show how your rebuttal towards it was to partially quote it? i showed you how you were proven wrong once the full quote is examined (with the part in brackets that you so conveniently left out). once again, i had refuted both ways of understanding the question but for some strange reason, you then only chose to quote the section which did not apply to the manner in which you posed/understood the question. so when i refute both ways that an individual could understand the question and then you isolate only the one that doesn't apply to you, i have then been deceiving? is this seriously what you're saying (let's not forget that i had explicitly told you to prove your point by using my full quote. you only used part of it and then have the audacity to imply that i have been lying)?

sigh, you know what. you know where my rebuttal to your post can be found. anytime when you wish to answer my refutation of your article we can indeed continue.

[IAmZamzam]

Yo, Yahya Sulaiman.

Just gettin' your attention. After checking out your website, given in this thread, I saw your "The Koran's Challenge to Christians Who Believe in the Incarnation." I found it interesting and posted a response to it on the "Immortal/Mortal" thread.

And I have posted my response to your response.

Quite possibly the only people who can engage in a religious debate without emotional feelings are atheists.

Not virtually any of the atheists I've ever talked to about it! Nor virtually any on this board.

[YieldedOne]

Woodrow:
If the Crucifixion redeemed mankind, of what value is baptism?

I can give this a brief go. And this is just MY take.

One thing that can be said is that baptism is a concrete participation in the "redemptive history" of what God did for Creation through Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. Paul seems to say as much: Through baptism, Christians put their old self/world-centered selves to death (dying to sin ala Christ's death)...and are raised to newness of life as God-centered persons via the Spirit (alive to God ala Jesus' resurrection). It's an act of identification with Christ that allows one to fully live in the covenantal "redemptive history".

Again, just my brief take. I'm more on the Incarnation right now. :shade:

[IAmZamzam]

did i not just quote this very post? did i not just show how your rebuttal towards it was to partially quote it? i showed you how you were proven wrong once the full quote is examined (with the part in brackets that you so conveniently left out). once again, i had refuted both ways of understanding the question but for some strange reason, you then only chose to quote the section which did not apply to the manner in which you posed/understood the question. so when i refute both ways that an individual could understand the question and then you isolate only the one that doesn't apply to you, i have then been deceiving? is this seriously what you're saying (let's not forget that i ahve explicitly told you to prove your point by using my full quote. you only used part of it and then have the audacity to imply that i have been lying)?

You're lying right now, even as we speak. What you said just two posts ago or so was not anything about the full quote being "examined" nor how many ways anything has allegedly been done, but that the ENTIRE POST was a misattribution and not just the part at the end. This time I'm not sure if the others will even have to leave the page at all to catch you in this lie!

I'm still waiting for that screen capture of the two posts I linked to. But I guess that it's not coming since (a) you couldn't do it without exposing yourself, and (b) you have now shifted your ground yet again to pretend that you didn't just say the whole quote was attributed to the wrong person! It never ends. Nevertheless, the links speak for themselves. At the first you can see what you originally said and at the second you can see my quotation of it, keystroke for keystroke. The only step left is to scroll up here and see you claiming the whole post consisted of stuff you never said.

[Woodrow]

Woodrow:
If the Crucifixion redeemed mankind, of what value is baptism?

I can give this a brief go. And this is just MY take.

One thing that can be said is that baptism is a concrete participation in the "redemptive history" of what God did for Creation through Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. Paul seems to say as much: Through baptism, Christians put their old self/world-centered selves to death (dying to sin ala Christ's death)...and are raised to newness of life as God-centered persons via the Spirit (alive to God ala Jesus' resurrection). It's an act of identification with Christ that allows one to fully live in the covenantal "redemptive history".

Again, just my brief take. I'm more on the Incarnation right now. :shade:

Is it safe for me to assume that that you are essentially saying " Baptism is a means of identifying one's self as being a Christian, but it is not essential for salvation?"

[Sol Invictus]

You're lying right now, even as we speak. What you said just two posts ago or so was not anything about the full quote being "examined" nor how many ways anything has allegedly been done, but that the ENTIRE POST was a misattribution and not just the part at the end. This time I'm not sure if the others will even have to leave the page at all to catch you in this lie!

look at the screen shots i had posted. i had made an entire post (after i dealt with your other claims) which consisted only of your misattribution and then said "those words aren't mine". at this point it seems to me that you simply do not want to admit the truth.

I'm still waiting for that screen capture of the two posts I linked to. But I guess that it's not coming since (a) you couldn't do it without exposing yourself, and (b) you have now shifted your ground yet again to pretend that you didn't just say the whole quote was attributed to the wrong person! It never ends. Nevertheless, the links speak for themselves. At the first you can see what you originally said and at the second you can see my quotation of it, keystroke for keystroke. The only step left is to scroll up here and see you claiming the whole post consisted of stuff you never said.

dear lord. i'm not going to bother with screenshots but merely give you direct links to the posts:

1. this is your original post where you quote my request for you to prove your point (notice that i ask for your proof to consist of my full post):

http://www.islamicboard.com/showthre...=1#post1437346

notice that nowhere in your repsonse is my post actually quoted in full. you fail to quote the very section which refutes your argument.

2. this then is my response to your lack of proof:

http://www.islamicboard.com/showthre...=1#post1437350

notice that i quote my entire post and place the part which refuted your understanding of the question in bold! (this is the part that you have consistently failed to quote)

3. and then i make an entirely new post which only quotes your misattribution of me and say that "what you have tried to pass off as my words aren't even mine.":

http://www.islamicboard.com/showthre...=1#post1437358

and yet even after all of this, you claim that i'm still the liar. amazing.

yahya, i really do tire of this. we are far from the original topic and this discussion is on the level of children. let us get back on topic.

[YieldedOne]

Woodrow:
Is it safe for me to assume that that you are essentially saying " Baptism is a means of identifying one's self as being a Christian, but it is not essential for salvation?"

Elements in both Eastern and Western Christianity allow for salvation outside of baptism, in so far as they say that God can save people outside of it, under various circumstances. They HAVE to allow for that, due to God's absolute freedom. Correlatively, they both sides assert that just because a person is baptized does NOT automatically insure their salvation. (Hence, even the Calvinistic idea of "perserverence of the saints" ) At the same time, the Church would say that baptism is the only way to fully participate in Christ's Body ecclessially.

"Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. All the categorical strength and point of this aphorism lies in its tautology. Outside the Church there is no salvation, because salvation is the Church" (G. Florovsky, "Sobornost: the Catholicity of the Church", in The Church of God, p. 53). Does it therefore follow that anyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily ****ed? Of course not; still less does it follow that everyone who is visibly within the Church is necessarily saved. As Augustine wisely remarked: "How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!" (Homilies on John, 45, 12) While there is no division between a "visible" and an "invisible Church", yet there may be members of the Church who are not visibly such, but whose membership is known to God alone. If anyone is saved, he must in some sense be a member of the Church; in what sense, we cannot always say.
—Kallistos Ware (Eastern Orthodox Bishop)


The Roman Catholic Church also teaches that the doctrine does not mean that everyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily ****ed.

[YieldedOne]

I'm missin' your response you said you made, Yahya. Technical issue, maybe? Can you repost it?

[Woodrow]

Woodrow:
Is it safe for me to assume that that you are essentially saying " Baptism is a means of identifying one's self as being a Christian, but it is not essential for salvation?"

Elements in both Eastern and Western Christianity allow for salvation outside of baptism, in so far as they say that God can save people outside of it, under various circumstances. They HAVE to allow for that, due to God's absolute freedom. Correlatively, they both sides assert that just because a person is baptized does NOT automatically insure their salvation. (Hence, even the Calvinistic idea of "perserverence of the saints" ) At the same time, the Church would say that baptism is the only way to fully participate in Christ's Body ecclessially.

"Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. All the categorical strength and point of this aphorism lies in its tautology. Outside the Church there is no salvation, because salvation is the Church" (G. Florovsky, "Sobornost: the Catholicity of the Church", in The Church of God, p. 53). Does it therefore follow that anyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily ****ed? Of course not; still less does it follow that everyone who is visibly within the Church is necessarily saved. As Augustine wisely remarked: "How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!" (Homilies on John, 45, 12) While there is no division between a "visible" and an "invisible Church", yet there may be members of the Church who are not visibly such, but whose membership is known to God alone. If anyone is saved, he must in some sense be a member of the Church; in what sense, we cannot always say.
—Kallistos Ware (Eastern Orthodox Bishop)


The Roman Catholic Church also teaches that the doctrine does not mean that everyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily ****ed.

That all seems to be logical and makes sense. With that said does Baptism ever play any part in the removal of Original Sin?

[Grace Seeker]

I see more emotionalism than logic being expressed in about the last 5 pages. I do accept the fact that any debate concerning religion is going to evoke emotions among members of any faith. Quite possibly the only people who can engage in a religious debate without emotional feelings are atheists. With that said I am overlooking the past few pages and not doing a massive clean up by deleting the pages.

Now with that said let us all try to return to the topic on hand and fprget about any personal arguments that took place.

From what I see we had reached a point where a few somewhat related topics were being discussed those being:

1. The Crucifixion

2. Baptism

3. Blood atonement.

4. Original sin


In an attempt to direct this back to some sort of resemblance of order and the original topic I am tossing out this question:

If the Crucifixion redeemed mankind, of what value is baptism?

I'll try to play along.


Despite understanding it as a means of grace, I don't really see it as being salvific in and of itself. But like prayer and communion, it is an ordinance of obedience, confirms our relationship with God and is a visual sign proclaiming what God has already done on the spiritual level.

This sign of God's actions is the primary way in which I see baptism as being connected with original sin. It is Christ that cleanses us of that sin, not baptism. What baptism is for us is a reminder through the action of sprinkling, pouring, or immersing with water of God's saving acts. It therefore isn't ever the water that saves one, nor even human decision, but the actions of God that lay behind the physical sign.

Baptism also becomes a sign of entry into the faith community that is defined by Christ. So, it serves as a corporate link of connectivity between the members of the community and a testimony speaking to all of the activity of God which has brought them into that community of faith.

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

Now, a word to Yahya and Sol, Woodrow has tried to get this thread back on track. Yielded and I have tried to join in and respect that. We know that you have issues with one another. But you keep returning to the old issues. Yes, it is hard to let go, but if you can't let it go, at least respect Woodrow and the rest of us and take it elsewhere. My prayer for you both is that you may spend eternity engaged in exactly the sort of conversation that your next post reflects.

[Woodrow]

I'll try to play along.


Despite understanding it as a means of grace, I don't really see it as being salvific in and of itself. But like prayer and communion, it is an ordinance of obedience, confirms our relationship with God and is a visual sign proclaiming what God has already done on the spiritual level.

That makes sense. In your opinion do you think it is necessary for the removal of original sin?

[YieldedOne]

Woodrow:
With that said does Baptism ever play any part in the removal of Original Sin?

In my opinion, that question becomes merely academic if it is admitted by both East and West that the presence of baptism doesn't necessarily ensure salvation and its absence doesn't necessarily preclude salvation. A baby that was baptized as an infant in the Roman Catholic Church could still end up NOT being saved...whereas a baby that was NEVER baptized may be saved. Sooo...whence the issue about the removal of original sin? It's continual participation in the life of the Spirit of God--and the accompanying conquest of the "law of sin and death" BY that Spirit--that is the crucial factor.

[Grace Seeker]

That makes sense. In your opinion do you think it is necessary for the removal of original sin?

Sure, because any sort of sin can separate us from God. But Christ's death on the cross has already accomplished that (that being the removal of original sin). The power of sin to enslave has been broken for all of us, believer and unbeliever. All that baptism does in that regard is express the faith of the person that the work of Christ is indeed true and efficacious. Again, it is the work of Christ that is efficacious, not baptism proper. So, if sin does continue to enslave a person now, it isn't because sin won the battle, but because with the victory already secured by Christ we still chose to surrendered to it.

[YieldedOne]

GraceSeeker:
Again, it is the work of Christ that is efficacious, not baptism proper.

Agreed. :)

[IAmZamzam]

look at the screen shots i had posted. i had made an entire post (after i dealt with your other claims) which consisted only of your misattribution and then said "those words aren't mine". at this point it seems to me that you simply do not want to admit the truth.


dear lord. i'm not going to bother with screenshots but merely give you direct links to the posts:

1. this is your original post where you quote my request for you to prove your point (notice that i ask for your proof to consist of my full post):

http://www.islamicboard.com/showthre...=1#post1437346

notice that nowhere in your repsonse is my post actually quoted in full. you fail to quote the very section which refutes your argument.

2. this then is my response to your lack of proof:

http://www.islamicboard.com/showthre...=1#post1437350

notice that i quote my entire post and place the part which refuted your understanding of the question in bold! (this is the part that you have consistently failed to quote)

3. and then i make an entirely new post which only quotes your misattribution of me and say that "what you have tried to pass off as my words aren't even mine.":

http://www.islamicboard.com/showthre...=1#post1437358

and yet even after all of this, you claim that i'm still the liar. amazing.

The situation is very amazing indeed, but not for the reasons you think. You're incorrigible. If you can't get away with fabricating that every single part of my post, instead of just the one little part at the end, was a misattribution of other people's words then instead you dodge the issue by pretending that you weren't saying it was the whole post in the first place (you wouldn't dare show screen shots of that!):

made an entire separate post to deal with your misattribution and as such i could in fact say, those words weren't mine because the entire post which i was responding to constituted of words you tried to pass off as my own.

There was absolutely no post of mine whatsoever that is one long misattribution from start to finish, and everyone is free to look; indeed, I encourage it!

As for my "consistently failing to quote" the Isaiah thing, I just addressed it about two posts ago! People won't even have to leave the page this time to see you're lying and evading! (EDIT: Okay, I now see that they will have to go one page back....) But just for the sake of sparing them a few seconds, here it is AGAIN:

this is amazing. were these not your words?: "He asked for examples from PREVIOUS prophets, you ignored this and provided only quotes from CONTEMPORARY AND/OR SUBSEQUENT WRITERS"

No, he didn't. He said UNEQUIVOCAL ones. Show me where the words "Jesus" or "Messiah" pops up in Isaiah 53.

Awfully safe bet to expect people to overlook or fail to remember the "unequivocal" part, ain't it? I do believe that's the closest to a convincing pretense you've yet made.

It seems no matter what I say, you always react the same way: by (a) pretending that you didn't say what I was speaking of when anyone who bothers to click on one single link can see that you did--and the one time that you happen to be right about that you still foul it up by exaggerating and claiming more misattribution than there actually was! It's as though you're determined to be as unconvincing a liar as you possibly can--(b) pretending as well that I never said something I just said a few posts ago, or a few pages at the very most, and (c) always attaching the utterly inevitable addendum that you have been repeatedly challenging me for information you haven't even mentioned before and the posts of mine you are claiming don't exist have just been dancing all around questions you've never asked. It's as though you believe that merely saying you've been asking me the same thing repeatedly will make people think that it is so and that you are the obvious victor.

yahya, i really do tire of this. we are far from the original topic and this discussion is on the level of children. let us get back on topic.

I promise you that there's no way you can be anywhere near as tired of it as you are. I'm about ready to pull my hair out at your constant and supremely redundant and contradictory fabrications. For heaven's sake, man, if you're going to lie then at least pick a story and stick with it! But yes, feel free to slink away now that I've shown for the nine hundredth time with a few simple links just how shamelessly you're making things up.

[Woodrow]

Sure, because any sort of sin can separate us from God. But Christ's death on the cross has already accomplished that. The power of sin to enslave has been broken for all of us, believer and unbeliever. All that baptism does in that regard is express the faith of the person that the work of Christ is indeed true and efficacious. Again, it is the work of Christ that is efficacious, not baptism proper. So, if sin does continue to enslave a person now, it isn't because sin won the battle, but because with the victory already secured by Christ we still chose to surrendered to it.

First of all Thank you for the friendly replies. I know you and I have fundamental differences in beliefs, but it is good to know differences can be discussed without the need for body armor or hand grenades. I do appreciate reading your view.

Now in terms of Original Sin, just what danger if any does it pose? To be honest I do not believe it exists, but I appreciate the fact you probably do believe it exists. Therefore my question, what danger is it?

[IAmZamzam]

I'm missin' your response you said you made, Yahya. Technical issue, maybe? Can you repost it?

That's weird, where did it go??? I could've sworn the computer told me it was up! Well I don't want to have to bother retyping the whole thing and I've already done way more typing today than is good for me so I'll just sum up (my apologies for whatever in the holy h might have happened): the question is whether or not the "Father" could utterly annihilate the "Son"--not just his body but everything that he is.

[YieldedOne]

I'm responding on the other thread, Yahya. FYI.

[JPR]

Now in terms of Original Sin, just what danger if any does it pose? To be honest I do not believe it exists, but I appreciate the fact you probably do believe it exists. Therefore my question, what danger is it?

Not sure if you're using the Catholic church idea of Original Sin, but I think the term can lead to confusion.

What would be the first sin ever made according to the Bible? Eve followed by Adam when they disobeyed God's command. What was the consequence? removal from Eden and God's presence. Although I don't think we are born with sin, we surely are all sinners by default. It's deep in our genes, I mean, if I tell you the first law I'll make is to not think about a red hammer, the first thing you'll probably be thinking is a red hammer, not because you want to piss me off and break my law but because we're all hardwired that way.

If you ask any young kid between 5 and 9 years old, give or take, what they wish for, most of them will answer you something as happiness for everyone, world peace, etc... anything for the greater good of mankind. Yet, as they become older, they slowly start to wish for themselves and less for others. It's like that for everyone. We're all slowly drifting away from God's goal, from His presence.

I can make an analogy with my own life and Adam's: I was born close to God's presence, but I chose to disobey because it felt rewarding at the moment. We're all finite beings so we all want and search for easy pleasures now that contradict God's law. We're all Adams and Eves on our own falling away from God. That's the danger of what you would call Original Sin. You might also think of it this way: if death sentence was mandatory for any of the 10 commandments broken and God decided to enforce it right now, this moment, how many people would die this instant? (it's a rhetorical question just to get you thinking about the seriousness and the universality of sin)

As for when one should get baptized for salvation, how kids get into this is complicated matters. I'm no doctor of theology but my guess is that when the person is ready, God is waiting. Some people have said that when you are able to discern good vs bad, it is a good time. It took me 28 years.

Every single human being has sinned, sins, and will sin, not counting Jesus of course. Don't know if that's "Original" enough for you. Hehe, just made a pun. Doubly original, whabam!

Anyone is welcome to add or substract from what I said.

[Sol Invictus]

yahya, quite clearly you did not even bother to follow the links. at this point there's nothing i can do seeing as it would seem that you are doing everything to avoid the truth. i can only hope that you'll actually follow the links i have given you (you could not have said the isaiah thing because it wasn't even the section i had placed in bold. please actually follow the link). that said, we have spent an awful long time discussing this subject and at this point i must wonder, why it is that you are perfectly fine with going back and forth on this minor point yet you are absolutely averse to renewing the focus to my refutation of your article?

the reader should note the manner in which any attempt to truly engage my argument has been avoided so far.

[gmcbroom]

I agree with Grace Seekers post number 269 of this thread. About baptism being an ecclesial entry into the the faith community of Christ. That also makes sense since in Acts 19:15 an evil spirit possesing someone told a few jewish exorcists how he recognized Jesus and knew Paul but didn't know the jews that came to exorcise it.

Also in an earlier chapter 10 (44-49) its reinforced by Peter when he said how can anyone withhold the water for baptizing who have received the Holy Spirit even as they had. The he ordered their baptism and they welcomed him to stay with them a few days.

Now if one wanted to attack the idea of baptism they could reference the baptism in the name of Jesus Christ as that differs from what Jesus said in Matthew 28:19 to baptise them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

This is also where the formulation of the Trinity comes into play. Though your right Trinity isn't stated directly in the New Testament is can be implied from these 2 references. This is why there are Trinitarian Christians and Unitarian Christians.

Peace be with you.

[Grace Seeker]

Not sure if you're using the Catholic church idea of Original Sin, but I think the term can lead to confusion.

Ah, good call, for what I am talking about is actually the consequence of the original sin, and subsequent understanding of inherited depravity.

[Grace Seeker]

Now in terms of Original Sin, just what danger if any does it pose? To be honest I do not believe it exists, but I appreciate the fact you probably do believe it exists. Therefore my question, what danger is it?

The short answer today, perhaps a more lengthy and nuanced theological answer to follow if you still want it.


The biggest problem with the original sin, which by the way was not the eating of an apple, nor even the picking of the fruit Adam and Eve were told not to eat, but the act of thinking that they new better than God and wanting to assert their own authority over their lives rather than being submissive to God's. Now, my view is that every single person on this earth since that time -- save Jesus -- has suffered this same malady (i.e., looking out for #1). Even that wouldn't be so bad, but we never consider ourselves #2. So you see, without being trained by anyone to sin, we are born predisposed to place self and not God in the first position. That is a violation of the most basic of all commands: "thou shalt have no other gods," but we do and his name is "I".

Now, I can't prove to you that this is the direct result of the fall described in Genesis, at least not in the since of scientific proof that comes in the form of verifiably repeatable experiments. But I feel that we've got millions of bits of observational data that are all consistent in pointing to the same conclusion -- all humans sin, it is a part of our basic nature. So, since I don't think that God created us to be sinners, yet we all are, then God either made flawed human beings or God allowed for a choice that has as its consequence predisposed us to this sinful behavior. The Biblical record hypothesizes the second of those being what happened, and I accept that hypothesis as fitting the facts as I observe them.

Now, however we get there, I assume you agree with me that people sin. And you ask what danger does the Original Sin pose? Answer it leads to the condition we presently see in the world that sin, rather than righteousness, reigns supreme in the lives of most humans so that even the most righteous among us are not free from the stain of it.

[Woodrow]

The short answer today, perhaps a more lengthy and nuanced theological answer to follow if you still want it.


The biggest problem with the original sin, which by the way was not the eating of an apple, nor even the picking of the fruit Adam and Eve were told not to eat, but the act of thinking that they new better than God and wanting to assert their own authority over their lives rather than being submissive to God's. Now, my view is that every single person on this earth since that time -- save Jesus -- has suffered this same malady (i.e., looking out for #1). Even that wouldn't be so bad, but we never consider ourselves #2. So you see, without being trained by anyone to sin, we are born predisposed to place self and not God in the first position. That is a violation of the most basic of all commands: "thou shalt have no other gods," but we do and his name is "I".

Now, I can't prove to you that this is the direct result of the fall described in Genesis, at least not in the since of scientific proof that comes in the form of verifiably repeatable experiments. But I feel that we've got millions of bits of observational data that are all consistent in pointing to the same conclusion -- all humans sin, it is a part of our basic nature. So, since I don't think that God created us to be sinners, yet we all are, then God either made flawed human beings or God allowed for a choice that has as its consequence predisposed us to this sinful behavior. The Biblical record hypothesizes the second of those being what happened, and I accept that hypothesis as fitting the facts as I observe them.

Now, however we get there, I assume you agree with me that people sin. And you ask what danger does the Original Sin pose? Answer it leads to the condition we presently see in the world that sin, rather than righteousness, reigns supreme in the lives of most humans so that even the most righteous among us are not free from the stain of it.

Peace Gene, and again Thank You for a clear, peaceful response.

I actually am curious as to what you believe, for the purpose of mutual understanding not for debate or argument. for people to understand each other it helps to know what it is they believe. People do not need to always agree, in order to live in Peace, but it does help that if they disagree, they know what it is they disagree over and not assume they know without asking.

[gmcbroom]

Woodrow,
I agree. it doesn't have to dissolve into a shouting match just because ones views are different.

Peace be with you.

[Grace Seeker]

I actually am curious as to what you believe, for the purpose of mutual understanding not for debate or argument. for people to understand each other it helps to know what it is they believe. People do not need to always agree, in order to live in Peace, but it does help that if they disagree, they know what it is they disagree over and not assume they know without asking.

Woodrow,
I agree. it doesn't have to dissolve into a shouting match just because ones views are different.

Peace be with you.

Me three.

I know that I never anticipated that I would be changing anyone's views regarding their faith when I came on this board. I just hoped to learn enough to be more sure about that in Islam which I did not know or myself understand. I've stayed because I've seen that there are those who have been confused regarding aspects of my faith that I had hoped I could help them better understand. Sadly, if there is any conflict for me on these boards, it is that I find many people would rather live with their embedded misunderstandings than seek guidance from someone who actually practices the faith they flaggrantly misrepresent. Others project any response that doesn't affirm their own views to be attempts at evasion or non-response rather than appreciating the reality that just as there are nuances to how one might want to articulate one's own faith, so might others wish to communicate their own religious views.

But on the other hand, there have been those few discussions where such conversation has happened. Then this board is at its best.



I wonder if others see this as well? And if you do, what do you see as common factors in those threads that can have a good discussion and those that become "war zones" other than the obvious that more respect is shown in some threads than others. I guess I'm asking what is it that leads some threads to give evidence of this higher level of respectful conversation? It does not seem to be related to thread topic, because I've seen threads on what color the sky is degenerate into knock down dragouts. Would I be amiss in suggesting that it seems to me that certain members are more prone to stir things up than others simply by the tenor of their posts?

[gmcbroom]

Grace Seeker, I agree. I think the difference is responding instead of reacting. And is that cultural or something more individual? I don't think its tied to ones religion is it?

[Sol Invictus]

it certainly does seem to be the case that how productive a discussion is and furthermore how peacefully it is conducted relies particularly on who exactly the participants are. there are those who can have a peaceful discussion with almost anyone, and then there are those who are unable to conduct a peaceful discussion with anyone they do not theologically agree with (whether their interlocutor be a muslim or non-muslim). one problem of note is that far too often do individuals on this board think it to be perfectly alright to write posts consisting of thinly veiled insults.

[Grace Seeker]

I don't think it's tied to one's religion is it?

I don't think it is, though it may be tied to one's response to religion.

I know you are on the Catholic Answers board, and honestly I run into more conflict there than I do here. So much in fact that I haven't been on it in nearly a year. But I don't think that has anything to do with religion because I've never experienced any animosity from either Catholics or Muslims in my real world experience, even though we've engaged in some heavy theological discussions and joint ministry efforts.

What I've run into is that in real life my biggest conflicts have come from others who happened to be close in beliefs to mine, but who were not content unless mine actually mirrored theirs precisely. Thus, not one's actual views, but intolerance of others who hold differing views (to whatever degree) seems to be the trigger. And then there is personality, that some are more acerbic than others in the way they communicate. (Those "thinly veiled insults", sometimes outright and unveiled, that Sol mentioned.) Given that human history illustrates religious views are often held deeply and strong, this way of relating to others with whom we might disagree can compound an already volatile situation.



I think a good word for Christians is: "Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone." (Romans 12:17-18)


Perhaps a similar good word for Mulims would be: "O you who believe; people should not mock other people, for these may be better than they are." (49:11) Unless Muslims understand this to be applicable only to other believers? Is there a word on how Muslims are to treat non-Muslims?

[Hamza Asadullah]

I don't think it is, though it may be tied to one's response to religion.

I know you are on the Catholic Answers board, and honestly I run into more conflict there than I do here. So much in fact that I haven't been on it in nearly a year. But I don't think that has anything to do with religion because I've never experienced any animosity from either Catholics or Muslims in my real world experience, even though we've engaged in some heavy theological discussions and joint ministry efforts.

What I've run into is that in real life my biggest conflicts have come from others who happened to be close in beliefs to mine, but who were not content unless mine actually mirrored theirs precisely. Thus, not one's actual views, but intolerance of others who hold differing views (to whatever degree) seems to be the trigger. And then there is personality, that some are more acerbic than others in the way they communicate. (Those "thinly veiled insults", sometimes outright and unveiled, that Sol mentioned.) Given that human history illustrates religious views are often held deeply and strong, this way of relating to others with whom we might disagree can compound an already volatile situation.



I think a good word for Christians is: "Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone." (Romans 12:17-18)


Perhaps a similar good word for Mulims would be: "O you who believe; people should not mock other people, for these may be better than they are." (49:11) Unless Muslims understand this to be applicable only to other believers? Is there a word on how Muslims are to treat non-Muslims?

Greetings Grace Seeker,


I think when it comes to discussing matters of faith particularly comparitive religion then passions will tend to run high because emotions are involved and at times that is a good thing as long as we are still respectful of each other at the end of the debate or discussion.


Even though i have debated Sol and yourself quite passionatly, i still respect both of you and your beliefs though i may not agree with them and you may not agree with mine. But i also think it works both ways. If one increases their tone then the others tone will also naturally increase.


Even in real life whenever i discuss or debate comparitive religion with my non Muslim colleages, neighbours, friends etc then passions may get high at times but at the end of the discussion we are still respectful of one another because i would never allow a discussion between myself and another person to get into mockery and insults as i think that only produces bitter feelings and consequantly gives satan a hand in the discussion which only causes more harm than good.


The Islamic perspective of discussion with non Muslims is to invite them to Islam with hikmah (wisdom) and beautiful preaching:


1. Allah says to invite in the most beautiful of ways using wisdom and tact:

“Invite (all) to the Way of your Rabb (Cherisher and Sustainer) with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for your Rabb knows best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance.” (16:125)


2. As Muslims we should also be friendly and kind in calling non-Muslims to Islam:


Abu Hurairah narrated that the Prophet said, “A believer is friendly, and there is no good in one who is neither friendly nor is treated in a friendly way.” (Tirmidhi 4995; and Ahmad)


Yazid Bin Na’mah narrated that Allah’s Messengerr said, “When a man makes another his brother he should ask him his name, his father’s name and the stock from which he comes, for it Binds friendship more closely.” (Tirmidhi 5020)


3. We as Muslim should always invite people to Islam with kind words instead of evil words or bad language:


“Kind words and forgiving of faults are better than charity followed by injury. And Allah is Rich (Free of all wants) and He is most Forbearing.” (2:263)

“Allah does not love the utterance of evil words in public except by one who has been wronged. Allah is He Who hears and knows all things.” (4:148)

‘Abdullah Bin ‘Amir t narrated that the Prophet (Pbuh) never used bad language. He used to say, “The best amongst you are those who have the best manners and character.” (Bukhari 4/759 and 8/56)


4. According to the teachings in Islam we should refrain from nonsense talk:


“Say to My servants that they should (only) say those things that are best: for Satan does sow dissension among them: for Satan is to man an avowed enemy.” (17:53)

“Successful indeed are the believers, who are humble in their prayer, who shun the nonsense talking and the vain conversation, and who pay Zakat.” (23:1-4)


5. A Muslim should speak good and never insult


Abu Hurairah t narrated that Allah’s Messengerr said, “Whoever believes in Allah and the last day should talk what is good or keep quiet. And whoever believes in Allah and the last day should not hurt (or insult) his neighbor. And whoever believes in Allah and the last day should entertain his guest generously.” (Bukhari 8/482)

‘Abdullah Bin Mas’ud t narrated that the Prophet said, “A believer does not taunt, curse, abuse or talk indecently.” (Tirmidhi 1740)


6. A Muslim must control his anger and refrain from having dispute or quarrel


Abu Hurairah t narrated that Allah’s Messenger r said, “The strong is not the one who overcomes the people by his strength, but the strong is the one who controls himself while in anger.” (Bukhari 8/ 135 and Muslim 4/6311-6314)

‘Aishah t narrated that the Prophetr said, “The most hated person in the sight of Allah is the most quarrelsome person.” (Bukhari 3/637)


7. But if the people of the book make a claim then let them verify it:

“And they say: ‘None shall enter Paradise unless he be a Jew or a Christian.’ Those are their (vain) desires. Say, ‘Produce your proof if you are truthful.’” (2:111)

“...Say: ‘Bring you the Torah and study it, if you be men of truth.’ If any, after this invent a lie and attribute it to Allah, they are indeed unjust wrong-doers.” (3:93-94)

“Or have they taken for worship (other) gods besides Him? Say, “Bring your convincing proof: this is the Message of those before me.” But most of them know not the Truth, and so turn away.” (21:24)


So we can only inform but it is Allah who unseals and opens the hearts and it is he who guides.


“Whom Allah does guide, he is on the right path. Whom He rejects from His guidance, such are the persons who lose.” (7:178)

[Grace Seeker]

3. We as Muslim should never invite people to Islam with kind words instead of evil words or bad language:

I'm hoping that the word "never" is a mistake?????

[Hamza Asadullah]

I'm hoping that the word "never" is a mistake?????

Oops thank you for the correction.

[Woodrow]

I don't think it is, though it may be tied to one's response to religion.

I know you are on the Catholic Answers board, and honestly I run into more conflict there than I do here. So much in fact that I haven't been on it in nearly a year. But I don't think that has anything to do with religion because I've never experienced any animosity from either Catholics or Muslims in my real world experience, even though we've engaged in some heavy theological discussions and joint ministry efforts.

What I've run into is that in real life my biggest conflicts have come from others who happened to be close in beliefs to mine, but who were not content unless mine actually mirrored theirs precisely. Thus, not one's actual views, but intolerance of others who hold differing views (to whatever degree) seems to be the trigger. And then there is personality, that some are more acerbic than others in the way they communicate. (Those "thinly veiled insults", sometimes outright and unveiled, that Sol mentioned.) Given that human history illustrates religious views are often held deeply and strong, this way of relating to others with whom we might disagree can compound an already volatile situation.



I think a good word for Christians is: "Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone." (Romans 12:17-18)


Perhaps a similar good word for Mulims would be: "O you who believe; people should not mock other people, for these may be better than they are." (49:11) Unless Muslims understand this to be applicable only to other believers? Is there a word on how Muslims are to treat non-Muslims?

Peace Gene,

Good points. It is true the closer people are the greater the animosity. Perhaps it is because we all have what we consider to be self evident beliefs. When somebody agrees with us part of the way we assume they actually already know what we believe to be true and they are deliberately rejecting it. this causes blood pressures and tempers to rise. Sort of like most of us are stricter with our own kids than we are on the neighbors kids. Oddly in some ways this hostility can be seen as a misguided love.

Regarding this paragraph:

Perhaps a similar good word for Muslims would be: "O you who believe; people should not mock other people, for these may be better than they are." (49:11) Unless Muslims understand this to be applicable only to other believers? Is there a word on how Muslims are to treat non-Muslims?

Surah 49 is directed specifically as to how Muslims should treat Muslim. but it may not be a bad idea to to extend the thought towards all people as much as possible. For specific treatment of non Muslims we do have similar wordings. Such as:


From surah 60, Yusuf Ali translation:

1. O ye who believe! Take not my enemies and yours as friends (or protectors),- offering them (your) love, even though they have rejected the Truth that has come to you, and have (on the contrary) driven out the Prophet and yourselves (from your homes), (simply) because ye believe in Allah your Lord! If ye have come out to strive in My Way and to seek My Good Pleasure, (take them not as friends), holding secret converse of love (and friendship) with them: for I know full well all that ye conceal and all that ye reveal. And any of you that does this has strayed from the Straight Path.

2. If they were to get the better of you, they would behave to you as enemies, and stretch forth their hands and their tongues against you for evil: and they desire that ye should reject the Truth.

3. Of no profit to you will be your relatives and your children on the Day of Judgment: He will judge between you: for Allah sees well all that ye do.

4. There is for you an excellent example (to follow) in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people: "We are clear of you and of whatever ye worship besides Allah. we have rejected you, and there has arisen, between us and you, enmity and hatred for ever,- unless ye believe in Allah and Him alone": But not when Abraham said to his father: "I will pray for forgiveness for thee, though I have no power (to get) aught on thy behalf from Allah." (They prayed): "Our Lord! in Thee do we trust, and to Thee do we turn in repentance: to Thee is (our) Final Goal.

5. "Our Lord! Make us not a (test and) trial for the Unbelievers, but forgive us, our Lord! for Thou art the Exalted in Might, the Wise."

6. There was indeed in them an excellent example for you to follow,- for those whose hope is in Allah and in the Last Day. But if any turn away, truly Allah is Free of all Wants, Worthy of all Praise.

7. It may be that Allah will grant love (and friendship) between you and those whom ye (now) hold as enemies. For Allah has power (over all things); And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

8. Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.

9. Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong.

Note ayyat 8 especially--- essentially that says we are to treat non Muslims in a similar manner to how we treat Muslims. Providing they are not waging war against us because of our Faith.

[IAmZamzam]

yahya, quite clearly you did not even bother to follow the links. at this point there's nothing i can do seeing as it would seem that you are doing everything to avoid the truth. i can only hope that you'll actually follow the links i have given you (you could not have said the isaiah thing because it wasn't even the section i had placed in bold. please actually follow the link).

My very stomach can tolerate no longer having to continue the infinite cycle of correcting and exposing your lies only to have them projected right back onto me every time with the repeated insistences that I've been avoiding things all along (which in most, though not quite all, cases haven't even been so much as mentioned before). I still must say how interesting I find it that you accuse me of not clicking on any of the links right after I quote myself from a post that the links take you directly to. It seems you're so determined to convince people that no matter what you do people keep evading and ignoring allegedly repeated challenges that you'll even go so far as to accuse someone of not going to a link they just copied from in response! Like I said, you just keep topping yourself. I want out. If by this point you've actually managed to convince anyone of your pathetic lies then that's not on my head but blameable only by their own gullibility and/or carelessness. As for the question, "Why it is that you are perfectly fine with going back and forth on this minor point yet you are absolutely averse to renewing the focus to my refutation of your article?" (a) Does the tone of my recent posts, and the very content of this one for that matter, make it sound to you like I was fine with anything? And (b) For the fortieth time or so, I have already given the reasons/arguments long ago that you inevitably insist like the clockwork man you are you've been asking for and asking for and never getting: that I was already (and since have been) endangering my health too much with all this B.S. you've put me through and to continue back and forth with point-by-point shatterings of your arguments would result in you responding again with a longer post, and me with one longer than that, and so on until my hands probably freeze up into claws for a year. You can ask Grace Seeker, whom you seem to trust, if I said that, as he has given me positive rep points for the post in which I did. Good riddance, for life, and may God please, please, please have mercy on your ruthlessly dishonest soul.

P.S. I apologize to Grace Seeker if he meant that message to be just between him and me.
P.P.S. Perhaps brother Hamza would like to take up the sword now, if he still has the stomach for it either. He doesn't seem to mind so much. Up to him.

[Grace Seeker]

You can ask Grace Seeker, whom you seem to trust, if I said that, as he has given me positive rep points for the post in which I did. Good riddance, for life, and may God please, please, please have mercy on your ruthlessly dishonest soul.

P.S. I apologize to Grace Seeker if he meant that message to be just between him and me.

I'm not wishing to get in the middle of what I consider to have become discussion that has long since become without merit on either part. I'm only responding to it now because I see that my name has been appealed to. So, here is what I have to say:

1) I have no idea what the argument is about any more. Oh I know that it is because both of you feel offended for the other having spoken falsely regarding what you had posted. But your arguments of he said that I said that he said that I said only I didn't say that I said that he said that I said not I said that he said have become overwhelming and overbearing. I suspect I was invovled somehow, but I can't tell who started what anymore, nor can I figure it out by looking back -- and I've tried.

2) Yahya, the last post for which I have a record of giving you positive rep points was #116:

The size of the posts during these sorts of arguments always grow exponentially like ungainly, badly kept hedges and I want out. My hands aren't up to the task. Let the people who read our little debate decide for themselves what to think of it, I can't continue with tendonitis like I have.

The comment I left for you on that post was: "I love your piture of an overgrown hedge. So true. You can't type them. Often I can't read them without a headache, and I know I'm one of the worst offenders as well."

3) The reality is that you are both angry. Angry over something that you feel was done to you, where you were treated badly, your honor subsequently besmirched, and you want satisfaction. Well, satisfaction of the type you are seeking isn't going to come from the verbal diaherra that has been let loose across this board. And until you figure that out you're not only to be stuck wallowing in it yourselves, but are continuing to splatter the rest of us with the excretment as well. Please, don't cause me to lose the respect that you had each worked to earn by the generally thoughtful nature of your posts in the past.

4) Woodrow's post (#257) had him speaking as a mod who did not wish to punsih anyone, but simply to redirect you both back to more appropriate forum behavior. Others have also asked you to put it behind you and move one. But it isn't happening. Not even guidance from your respective holy scriptures seems able to dissuade either of you from continuing to carry on this argument not as a debate, but as a grudge.

5) So, I don't know what to do. As a fellow member, I have no authority to delete posts, close threads or enact a ban -- all of which I suspect have been mutually earned should any mod care to step in and take action. And you are both so angry that you have shown complete unreceptivity to request, guidance, or the modelling of other members in this thread. I can only ask you to breath, ask yourself what it is that you are trying to accomplish, and then seriously consider, how is what you are doing working for you? Are you any closer to getting the response you want now than when all of this started? And if not, may I suggest a different tact.

• Please, know that your pain is felt, acknowledged, and shared by others.
• Please, know that you are a valued member of this community.
• Please, observe that you are not alone in feeling the pain you feel.
• That being so, is it your desire to see another human punished for the pain that you feel or, if it was within your power, would you release them from it?
• Take your time, don't answer the last question too quickly. When one has been offended as deeply as you have, it is one thing to say, "I'm sorry." or "I forgive you." and quite another to actually do it.
• So, you have to decide not whether the other person has merited your forgiveness, most likely they have not, at least not in your eyes right now. Rather, what you have to decide is not about them at all, but about you. Not whether they are worthy of forgiveness, but are you the sort of person who forgives?

So, are you?

If you are, what would genuine forgivenss look like? What would its goals be?
Whatever it is that you are seeking (acknowledgment of being wronged, reconciliation, peace, tolerance, or simply freedom from animous contact) are you willing to offer that to the other?





The opening post of this thread is about forgiveness. Well we can debate it all we want, but even if one should win that argument, I wonder what one would really have won. I don't think God cares nearly as much about whether we can rightly talk about it as much as if we can rightly practice it. So, here is your chance, prove to the rest of us, who really knows the most about forgiveness, the Muslim or the Christian....let the contest (and the forgiving) begin!

[Ramadhan]

Bumping these questions for Sol.

Greetings Sol, Now prove your position that "sin is a debt which leads to death whose ONLY atonement is paid by blood" by giving us the explicit teachings and words of Jesus or God and NOT the words of those after Jesus or other than God. Do NOT provide the vague verses you have provided which prove NOTHING but only strengthen the fact that this teaching is NOT taught ANYWHERE by any Prophet, Jesus or God. Surely if this teaching is so fundamental and central to Christianity then its teaching must be EXPLICITLY taught by Jesus or God and NOT by those after Jesus. I await your answer regarding this. If Grace Seeker wants to help you then he should do as you clearly seem to be out of your depth here.

Sol why is it that whenever i ask you for direct solid evidence in explicit words from the teachings of ANY previous Prophet, Jesus or God of the blood atonement of Christ that you are clearly unable to do so EVERYTIME? If you are out of your depth here which is quite clearly the case and if i am putting too much pressure on you then i apologise and i will leave you be for a day or so until you are ready to actually respond to my posts. Until then i await a direct response from you....

[Sol Invictus]

Sol why is it that whenever i ask you for direct solid evidence in explicit words from the teachings of ANY previous Prophet, Jesus or God of the blood atonement of Christ that you are clearly unable to do so EVERYTIME?

greetings hamza. one must really wonder what isn't explicit about the following:

40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate it in their presence. 44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” 45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46 He told them, “This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.” --- Luke 24:40-49 NIV

could you please explain to us what is ambiguous about the above? could you please explain to us what christ meant with the above? i've noticed that it's often the case that you never actually deal with explaining why my examples do not say what i claim they say but instead continually bring up passages that have to do with personal responsibility. that's great for you but neither christians or jews have ever claimed that blood atonement removes personal responsibility. as it goes for your claims that blood atonement is not taught in scripture then what do you make of the animal sacrifices that the jews conducted for thousands of years? and more importantly, how the very prophets whom you claim spoke against blood atonement themselves could conduct and participate in blood atonement (such as you claiming that the passage in ezekiel is against blood atonement when ezekiel 43 highlights specifically how to make a proper blood atonement)? your revisionism is just so against history. if what you say is at all true, then could you show us through biblical jewish law that the following is at all false?:

Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. --- Hebrews 9:22

For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life. --- Leviticus 17:11 NIV

i'd very much like it if you could deal with the above. i find it quite odd that on one hand, muslims will decry the blood atonement in the bible as base and evil and use this to disparage god's word and yet when the matter calls for it, you will now claim that there is no basis for blood atonement in the bible (and as such it isn't supposedly base and evil). really, that's faulty argumentation.

as regards the matter of whether sin is a debt or not, please disprove my point from the debt motive within the language of the bible.

[Woodrow]

greetings hamza. one must really wonder what isn't explicit about the following:

40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate it in their presence. 44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” 45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46 He told them, “This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.” --- Luke 24:40-49 NIV

could you please explain to us what is ambiguous about the above? could you please explain to us what christ meant with the above? i've noticed that it's often the case that you never actually deal with explaining why my examples do not say what i claim they say but instead continually bring up passages that have to do with personal responsibility. that's great for you but neither christians or jews have ever claimed that blood atonement removes personal responsibility. as it goes for your claims that blood atonement is not taught in scripture then what do you make of the animal sacrifices that the jews conducted for thousands of years? and more importantly, how the very prophets whom you claim spoke against blood atonement themselves could conduct and participate in blood atonement (such as you claiming that the passage in ezekiel is against blood atonement when ezekiel 43 highlights specifically how to make a proper blood atonement)? your revisionism is just so against history. if what you say is at all true, then could you show us through biblical jewish law that the following is at all false?:

Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. --- Hebrews 9:22

For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life. --- Leviticus 17:11 NIV

i'd very much like it if you could deal with the above. i find it quite odd that on one hand, muslims will decry the blood atonement in the bible as base and evil and use this to disparage god's word and yet when the matter calls for it, you will now claim that there is no basis for blood atonement in the bible (and as such it isn't supposedly base and evil). really, that's faulty argumentation.

as regards the matter of whether sin is a debt or not, please disprove my point from the debt motive within the language of the bible.

There is an inherent difficulty in debating the words of different faiths that are not in agreement as to what is the accepted source of proof. This post is a good example of that.

We all need to accept the fact that in a debate between Muslims and Christians we are not in agreement over which books are true. In other words while to you the Bible is the true verification of the proof of your comments. We see the Bible as having no more validity as verification than the New York telephone book is. I believe you probably feel the same about the Qur'an while we accept it as the only verification of proof, I doubt very much you do. This does not mean that neither of us believes everything in the the other's source is wrong. but it does mean neither of us can or will accept the other's source as the True Complete Word of God(swt)

This is best exemplified in your last comment.

as regards the matter of whether sin is a debt or not, please disprove my point from the debt motive within the language of the bible

It is actually impossible to disprove anything. Even if a person were able to disprove something it would not be proof that their conflicting belief is true. It is always our burden to prove what we say is true, not to prove what somebody else is false.

In this case the burden of proof is upon you to prove you are right using what we accept as verification so your challenge is actually reversed and to be acceptable it is really a challenge for you to prove so the challenge is:


Sol, as regards the matter of whether sin is a debt or not, please prove your point from the debt motive within the language of the Qur'an or aHadith.

[Grace Seeker]

There is an inherent difficulty in debating the words of different faiths that are not in agreement as to what is the accepted source of proof. This post is a good example of that.

We all need to accept the fact that in a debate between Muslims and Christians we are not in agreement over which books are true. In other words while to you the Bible is the true verification of the proof of your comments. We see the Bible as having no more validity as verification than the New York telephone book is. I believe you probably feel the same about the Qur'an while we accept it as the only verification of proof, I doubt very much you do. This does not mean that neither of us believes everything in the the other's source is wrong. but it does mean neither of us can or will accept the other's source as the True Complete Word of God(swt)

This is best exemplified in your last comment.



It is actually impossible to disprove anything. Even if a person were able to disprove something it would not be proof that their conflicting belief is true. It is always our burden to prove what we say is true, not to prove what somebody else is false.

In this case the burden of proof is upon you to prove you are right using what we accept as verification so your challenge is actually reversed and to be acceptable it is really a challenge for you to prove so the challenge is:


Sol, as regards the matter of whether sin is a debt or not, please prove your point from the debt motive within the language of the Qur'an or aHadith.

I want to propose that we simply quit using the words "proof" and "prove" altogether. Let me tell of a situation that occurred off of this board to explain why.

A woman who was a JW came to my house and wanted to proselytize me. I allowed her in and she began to follow her routine for witnessing according to her faith. The usual point of beginning is to assert that there are lots of bad things happening in the world, so many that it must be "proof" of Christ's imminent return. I denied that I saw the same terrible signs that she report. I suggested that the tornadoes and hurricanes and earthquakes were no more than in the past years and a little less than in some. She didn't know what to do with that, but went on with your spiel. She openned up the Bible and began to tell me that it meant XYZ. I looked at the passge and saw only X and no connection to Y & Z. Indeed I understood the larger context of the passage to actually being saying the exact opposite of what she claimed. So, she then tried a different passage and had a most unusual twist on it as well. When she was done I asked if I could pose her a couple of questions. She had anticipated that and was ready to respond to what she thought were going to be the stock question that many people pose to JWs, but I surprised her with completely different questions that she wasn't at all prepared for. So, she excused herself and said that she would be back next week. She was, but she still didn't have answers for my question. Rather, she returned to her prepared presentation that, in my opinion, twisted the mean of much of the scriptures on its head. And when I asked my questions again, she once again excused herself. A third time she returned, and this time I began with my same, as yet, unanswered questions. Her response this time was to tell me that she had "proved" from scripture the truth of what she was saying and that I was wrong to question it.

Now, how does this story apply to our forum? Namely that this woman had not proved anything to me, and frankly I doubt that anyone here (except perhaps Hiroshi) would have thought she "proved" anything either. Rather, what she had done was produced an argument for a particular set of beliefs, one that made sense to her, but not to me. Now, I don't doubt that in her own mind she was convinced that she had "proved" her point. The problem was that she was asserting to me that she had "proved" her case even while I was totally unconvinced. I see the same thing happening a great deal in this section of the forum.

When we use the words "proof" and "prove" when need to be aware that the one making the argument may be trying to prove something, may think that the argument is logical, it may even have historically been seen as logical and convincing to many, but unless it compels the mind of the present listener to accept one's assertions as true one has NOT proved anything. One has only made a series of assertions.

The criterion of something to be considered "proven" rests not in the one making the assertion, but in the one we are trying to convince. As that seldom happens, my suggestion is that we drop such terminology from our lexicon. It would certainly be more honest, and I think it might even help us to be tolerant of others who didn't and won't respond to our "proofs."

[Woodrow]

I want to propose that we simply quit using the words "proof" and "prove" altogether. Let me tell of a situation that occurred off of this board to explain why.

A woman who was a JW came to my house and wanted to proselytize me. I allowed her in and she began to follow her routine for witnessing according to her faith. The usual point of beginning is to assert that there are lots of bad things happening in the world, so many that it must be "proof" of Christ's imminent return. I denied that I saw the same terrible signs that she report. I suggested that the tornadoes and hurricanes and earthquakes were no more than in the past years and a little less than in some. She didn't know what to do with that, but went on with your spiel. She openned up the Bible and began to tell me that it meant XYZ. I looked at the passge and saw only X and no connection to Y & Z. Indeed I understood the larger context of the passage to actually being saying the exact opposite of what she claimed. So, she then tried a different passage and had a most unusual twist on it as well. When she was done I asked if I could pose her a couple of questions. She had anticipated that and was ready to respond to what she thought were going to be the stock question that many people pose to JWs, but I surprised her with completely different questions that she wasn't at all prepared for. So, she excused herself and said that she would be back next week. She was, but she still didn't have answers for my question. Rather, she returned to her prepared presentation that, in my opinion, twisted the mean of much of the scriptures on its head. And when I asked my questions again, she once again excused herself. A third time she returned, and this time I began with my same, as yet, unanswered questions. Her response this time was to tell me that she had "proved" from scripture the truth of what she was saying and that I was wrong to question it.

Now, how does this story apply to our forum? Namely that this woman had not proved anything to me, and frankly I doubt that anyone here (except perhaps Hiroshi) would have thought she "proved" anything either. Rather, what she had done was produced an argument for a particular set of beliefs, one that made sense to her, but not to me. Now, I don't doubt that in her own mind she was convinced that she had "proved" her point. The problem was that she was asserting to me that she had "proved" her case even while I was totally unconvinced. I see the same thing happening a great deal in this section of the forum.

When we use the words "proof" and "prove" when need to be aware that the one making the argument may be trying to prove something, may think that the argument is logical, it may even have historically been seen as logical and convincing to many, but unless it compels the mind of the present listener to accept one's assertions as true one has NOT proved anything. One has only made a series of assertions.

The criterion of something to be considered "proven" rests not in the one making the assertion, but in the one we are trying to convince. As that seldom happens, my suggestion is that we drop such terminology from our lexicon. It would certainly be more honest, and I think it might even help us to be tolerant of others who didn't and won't respond to our "proofs."

Peace Gene,

Quite interesting and true. You are correct whenever anybody uses the words prove or proof it automatically becomes a challenge and the topic becomes emotionally charged.

But it is also a paradox, as each of us wants to prove to others what we believe to be true. I think we feel we are not doing our job if we do not use the word proof, proven etc. It makes us to feel somewhat of coming short when we we do not present "PROOF"

Hopefully others will read your post and arrive at the conclusion to use the word Proof or any of it's derivatives, can have adverse effects if not used sparingly at only at the appropriate times.

[Sol Invictus]

We all need to accept the fact that in a debate between Muslims and Christians we are not in agreement over which books are true. In other words while to you the Bible is the true verification of the proof of your comments. We see the Bible as having no more validity as verification than the New York telephone book is. I believe you probably feel the same about the Qur'an while we accept it as the only verification of proof, I doubt very much you do. This does not mean that neither of us believes everything in the the other's source is wrong. but it does mean neither of us can or will accept the other's source as the True Complete Word of God(swt)

greetings woodrow. this debate does not even concern the truth of the bible. one does not need to believe in the truth of the bible in order to be able to understand what it teaches. i don't need to believe in the truth of the qur'an to understand what is being taught within the book. hamza had claimed that the bible did not teach blood atonement, clearly we have seen that it does. now the fact that blood atonement is taught in the bible has no bearing on whether its more fundamental claims are true or not just as the fact that that he qur'an describes christ as having spoken at birth has no bearing on whether this account is true or not. all we are discussing is whether the claim that blood atonement is taught in the bible is true or not. i do not need to accept the qur'an as the word of god to understand that it describes the islamic prophet as a messenger from the muslim deity and in the same way one need not accept the truth of the bible to understand that it teaches blood atonement. as such, i think that you have been misunderstanding the nature of the discussion.

It is actually impossible to disprove anything. Even if a person were able to disprove something it would not be proof that their conflicting belief is true. It is always our burden to prove what we say is true, not to prove what somebody else is false.

woodrow, i believe that both you and i would disagree with the above. if i went about the forum claiming that the qur'an did not teach muhammad's prophethood wouldn't muslims cite various passages from the book in question as a means of disproving my claims? would you not agree with the fact that they are then proving my argument to be false? i think that the error that is happening in the above is that you are supposing that i am asking you to prove a negative. that i am not. two contentions are being argued here (that the bible teaches blood atonement or that the bible doesn't teach blood atonement) and to prove one is to disprove the other and vice versa. by asking hamza to disprove my position i am merely asking him to prove his position, the difference is merely in semantics. as such, i think that your above comment was due to a misunderstanding and not really with an objection with my claims but you are certainly allowed to disagree on this matter.

In this case the burden of proof is upon you to prove you are right using what we accept as verification so your challenge is actually reversed and to be acceptable it is really a challenge for you to prove so the challenge is:


Sol, as regards the matter of whether sin is a debt or not, please prove your point from the debt motive within the language of the Qur'an or aHadith.

i think that in the process of this long discussion, the various subpoints which have led to this particular topic have been forgotten. woodrow, it is not my challenge to prove that the qur'an describes sin as a debt to god (though this argument could certainly be made) for the fact that this was never my claim. we were speaking concerning christianity and i said that "the bible describes sin as a debt". hamza then disagreed with this and as such neither the qur'an nor hadith need enter into this particular question because they have nothing to do with this. what business do i have trying to prove my position from the qur'an when my point concerned the bible and hamza disagreed not on the basis of the qur'an but on the bible. remember that in entering this thread i said that i would espouse the christian logic as it came to yahya's article. my post has always been centered on christianity (seeing as this very thread has always been centered on christianity) and therefore it would be very odd if i turned to the qur'an to prove my debt analogy (though i suppose that this could be done as a minor secondary point).

so, i must once again reiterate that i understand your post as a misunderstanding of the discussion and yet if it is the case that it was i who mistook your intentions, then you are more than welcome to correct me as concerns the point you were trying to get across.

edit: graceseeker, in this case the word proof is warranted. though i certainly do understand what you are trying to get at.

[Grace Seeker]

Sol why is it that whenever i ask you for direct solid evidence in explicit words from the teachings of ANY previous Prophet, Jesus or God of the blood atonement of Christ that you are clearly unable to do so EVERYTIME?

There are many possible responses to such a statement:

First, let's examine the source you asked for: "ANY previous Prophet, Jesus or God." This fits with a Muslim way of receiving revelation, but that which is received and accepted by Christians is much broader, we even have a broader understanding of what a prophet is. Therefore we can find substantiation of beliefs in material that you may not accept as valid. We need to understand that when trying to "prove" the validity of our beliefs that such passages may not be convincing to you. But you likewise need to understand that just because they don't convince you does not mean that we don't see our views as fully supported.

Second, let's examine you preference for "explicit" words. It is nice when one has explicit words, but I don't find them necessary. Many beliefs that we each have are founded on interpretation of passages on consort with other passages, on the context in which given words are said, and what one understands as being implicit in them. This is not something that is unique to Christianity, one finds it in Islam as well. Indeed, with Jesus, one often finds him speaking in parable so that his teachings are intentional veiled to some degree, but clear to those who are truly seeking to understand what he is saying and who listen with ears to hear rather than just listening to the words. Thus, those who elect only to hear the "explicit" words of Jesus may actually miss the message that for others he is very clearly communicating. There is no proof that something is not taught, simply because it is not found in "explicit" words.

Lastly, let us examine the absolute quality of the statement, "whenever". This presumes that at no time, ever, has Sol provided any such teachings. But in fact, post #205 does contain exactly what you asked for -- the explicit words of Jesus that the Christ had to suffer (i.e. die) and that repentance and the preaching of forgiveness of sins would be preached in his name (i.e. that there is a connection between his death and the forgiveness of sins, which is a description of atonement). It matters not if you find the passage convincing or not, Sol has presented evidence. You can deny that Jesus ever said those words if you wish, but we hold that he did and we see them as speaking directly to what you have asked about.

[Hamza Asadullah]

greetings hamza. one must really wonder what isn't explicit about the following:

40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate it in their presence. 44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” 45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46 He told them, “This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.” --- Luke 24:40-49 NIV

could you please explain to us what is ambiguous about the above? could you please explain to us what christ meant with the above? i've noticed that it's often the case that you never actually deal with explaining why my examples do not say what i claim they say but instead continually bring up passages that have to do with personal responsibility. that's great for you but neither christians or jews have ever claimed that blood atonement removes personal responsibility. as it goes for your claims that blood atonement is not taught in scripture then what do you make of the animal sacrifices that the jews conducted for thousands of years? and more importantly, how the very prophets whom you claim spoke against blood atonement themselves could conduct and participate in blood atonement (such as you claiming that the passage in ezekiel is against blood atonement when ezekiel 43 highlights specifically how to make a proper blood atonement)? your revisionism is just so against history. if what you say is at all true, then could you show us through biblical jewish law that the following is at all false?:

Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. --- Hebrews 9:22

For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life. --- Leviticus 17:11 NIV

i'd very much like it if you could deal with the above. i find it quite odd that on one hand, muslims will decry the blood atonement in the bible as base and evil and use this to disparage god's word and yet when the matter calls for it, you will now claim that there is no basis for blood atonement in the bible (and as such it isn't supposedly base and evil). really, that's faulty argumentation.

as regards the matter of whether sin is a debt or not, please disprove my point from the debt motive within the language of the bible.

Greetings Sol,

I am relieved that you have finally replied to my post and that was only because Naidamar forced you to reply. Again i hope i am not putting any undue pressure on you to reply because i do not want you to feel you have to reply even though you do not want to.

Looking at your reply Sol again i am truly dissapointed that ONCE AGAIN you could not even attempt to answer my question but Instead as usual you clutch at straws.

You keep quoting from vague verses which do NOT mention ANYTHING of the fact that the blood atonement is NECESSERY for the atonement of sins. WHERE DOES THE VERSE SAY THAT?

Are you seriously trying to pass off such a vague verse as proof of your position which does NOT imply AT ALL that blood iof Christ is necessery for atonement.

If you go to a court of law and in trying to prove your case give vague evidences like you always do then the judges and jury will just laugh at you and think is this guy for real?

Come on Sol we weren't born yesterday. If you seriously think that verses like that proves your position in even the slightest then you are truly dillusional.

If we were both to give our evidences regarding the atonement to a court of law and if both evidences were to be thoroughly examined then there is absolutely NO doubt that the jury and judges will laugh at what you try to pass off as evidence or proof of your position.

All you have consistantly provided is vague verses which do NOT refer to what you are wanting them to refer to. They are also NOT supported by any other verses to imply what you want them to imply.

The evidence i have provided throughout this thread to disaprove your position that there is NO such teaching of the atonement in ANY of the words or teachings of ANY Prophet, Jesus or God Far OUTWEIGHS anything that you have even attempted to have provide as proof of your position. You have truly failed very miserably in this regard and thave therefore failed again.

Also for the second time now in this thread i have noticed that you are trying to assert that the Jewish faith relies on the blood atonement for the forgiveness of sins. Let us look at a Jewish perspective of the blood atonement:


The Jewish Perspective of blood atonement CLEARLY disaproving the Christian claim that atonement is through blood


Addressing those who say blood is the only way for atonement

Some people claim that there is no atonement without blood and that the blood of Jesus makes atonement for all of our sins. There are a few problems I have with this ideology. No where in the Hebrew Bible does it say blood is the ONLY way to make atonement for our sins. In fact there are several verses that prove otherwise. Also, no where in the Hebrew Bible does it say a person can die for someone elses sins, in fact it says the exact opposite. Jeremiah 31:30 teaches us that everyone shall die for their OWN sins.

“But every one shall die for his own sins.”

Ezekiel 18:20 teaches once again that we are responsible for our OWN sins, for the wickedness of the wicked shall be accounted to that individual alone.

“The person who sins, he alone shall die. A child shall not share the burden of a parent’s guilt, nor shall a parent share the burden of a child’s guilt; the righteousness of the righteous shall be accounted to him alone, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be accounted to him alone.”

The only verse in the entire Hebrew Bible that people use to support their claim that blood is the only way to make atonement is Leviticus 17:11. They do however read this verse slightly out of context, for Leviticus 17:10-12 teaches us to not eat blood, because God gave us blood to make atonement for our sins upon the altar. Just a quick sidenote, I’m pretty sure Jesus’s blood was never placed upon an altar. But anyways, despite the fact that this is the only verse they use to support their claim, no where in Leviticus 17:11 does it say blood is the ONLY way to make atonement. Here is what Leviticus 10-12 says in case anyone is wondering:

“And if anyone of the house of Israel or of the stangers who reside among them partakes of any blood, I will set my face against the person who partakes of the blood, and I will cut him off from among his kin. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have assigned it to you for making expiation for your lives upon the altar; it is the blood, as life, that effects expiation. Therefore I say to the Israelite people: no person among you shall partake of blood, nor shall the stranger who resides among you partake of blood.”

Its easy to see that the main message is to not “partake” or eat blood, because God assigned the blood of an animal to make atonement for our sins upon the altar. It’s also easy to see that now where in this passage does it say blood is the ONLY way to make atonement, it simply answers the question of how a sacrifice of an animal can make atonement.


True Sacrifice To God

Some Christians get so caught up in the concept of sacrifices that they fail to realize that it isn’t even the blood of the sacrifice that guarantee’s atonement for our sins. For If we are not truly sorry for our sins, giving up our evil ways, and desiring atonement, God can reject our sacrifices. In the book of Amos 5:21-22 the Israelites offer sacrifices to God and he rejects them, thus exemplifying the fact that blood in no way guarantees atonement. For their sacrifices were not true sacrifices. God teaches us what a true sacrifice is in Psalm 51:18-19

“You do not desire burnt offerings; true sacrifice to god is a contrite spirit; god you will not despise a contrite and crushed heart.”

Here we are specifically told that true sacrifice to God is a contrite spirit and a contrite heart. Notice no where does it say true sacrifice to God involves the use of blood. So when some people claim Jews don’t make sacrifices today I would have to disagree, for many of us give the true sacrifice of a contrite heart and spirit every single day.


God doesnt command, require, or desire us to sacrifice

I also want to quickly point out that God doesn’t even command us to sacrifice as Isaiah 7:22-23 says:

“For when I freed your fathers from the land of Egypt, I did not speak with them or command them concerning burnt offerings or sacrifice. But this is what I commanded them: do my bidding, that I may be your god and you may be my people; walk only in the way that I enjoin upon you, that it may go well with you.”

Micah 6:6-8 also helps exemplify this message by telling us the only things God requires from us:

“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 first born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for my sins? “He has told you, o man, what is good, and what the lord requires of you: ONLY to do justice and to love goodness, and to walk modestly with your god; then will your name achieve wisdom.”

Deut. 10:12-14 tells us exactly what God ONLY demands of us:

“And now, O Israel, what does the lord your god demand of you? ONLY this: to revere the lord your god, to walk only in his paths, to love him, and to serve the lord your god with all your heart and soul, keeping the lord’s commandments and laws, which I enjoin upon you today..."

God doesn't even desire us to sacrifice.

Proverbs 21:3 “To do what is right and just is more desired by the lord than sacrifice.”

Hosea 6:6 “For I desire goodness, not sacrifice; Obedience to God, rather than burnt offerings.”

1 Samuel 15:22 “does the lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obedience to the lords commands? Surely obedience is better than sacrifice”

Atonement through prayer and repentance

Ok so now to answer the question of how you can gain atonement without blood. First of all, I have already pointed out that God will never despise a contrite spirit and heart, for that is true sacrifice to God. But the following verses show us that we can gain atonement through repentance and prayer:

2 Chronicles 7:14 “when my people, who bear my name, humble themselves, pray, and seek my favor and turn from their evil ways, I will hear in my heavenly abode and forgive their sins and heal their land.”

Numbers 14:19-20 “Pardon, I pray, the iniquity of this people according to your great kindness, as you have forgiven this people ever since Egypt.” And the lord said, “I pardon, as you have asked.”

Psalm 32:5 “Then I acknowledged my sin to You; I did not cover up my guilt; I resolved “I will confess my transgression to the lord,” and you forgave the guilt of my sin.”

Proverbs 28:13 “He who covers up his faults will not succeed; he who confesses and gives them up will find mercy.”

Hosea 14:2-8 “Return, O Israel, to the Lord your God, for you have fallen because of your sin. Take words with you and return to the Lord. Say to Him: Forgive all guilt and accept what is good; instead of bulls we will pay [the offering of] our lips… I will heal their affliction, generously will I take them back in love; for my anger has turned away from them. I will be to Israel like dew; he shall blossom like the lily, he shall strike root like a Lebanon tree. His boughs shall spread out far, his beauty shall be like the olive tree’s, his fragrance like that of Lebanon. They who sit in his shade shall be revived: they shall bring to life new grain, they shall blossom like the vine; his scent shall be like the wine of Lebanon.

Psalm 107:17 “there were fools who suffered for their sinful way, and for their iniquities. All food was loathsome to them; they reached the gates of death. In their adversity they cried to the lord and he saved them from their troubles. He gave an order and healed them; he delivered them from the pits.”

Isaiah 55:6-8 “seek the lord while he can be found, call to him while he is near. Let the wicked give up his ways, the sinful man his plans; let him turn back to the lord, and he will pardon him; to our god, for he freely forgives. For my plans are not your plans, nor are my ways your ways.”

Isaiah 56:7 “let the wicked give up his ways, the sinful man his plans; let him turn back to the lord, and he will pardon him; to our god, for he freely forgives. For my plans are not your plans, nor are my ways your ways – declares the lord”

Isaiah 36:3 “Perhaps when the house of Judah hear of all the disasters I intend to bring upon them, they will turn back from their wicked ways, and I will pardon their iniquity and their sin.”

Ezekiel 18:21-23: “Moreover, if the wicked one repents of all the sins that he committed and keeps all my laws and does what is just and right, he shall live; he shall not die. None of the transgressions he committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness he has practiced, he shall live. Is it my desire that a wicked person shall die? Says the lord god. It is rather that he shall turn back from his ways and live.”

Ezekiel 33:14-16 “So, too, when I say to the wicked, “You shall die,”and he turns back from his sinfulness and does what is just and right – if the wicked man restores a pledge, makes good what he has taken by robbery, follows the laws of life, and does not commit iniquity – he shall live, he shall not die. None of the sins that he committed shall be remembered against him; since he does what is just and right, he shall live.”

Isaiah 1:16-20 “Wash yourselves clean; put your evil doings away from my sight. Cease to do evil; learn to do good. Devote yourselves to justice; aid the wronged. Uphold the rights of the orphan; defend the cause of the widow… Come let us reach an understanding, says the lord. Be your sins like crimson, they can turn snow-white; be they red as dyed wool, they can become like fleece. If, then you agree and give heed, you will eat the good things of the earth”

Job 33:26 "He prays to God and is accepted by Him, he enters His presence with shouts of joy"

Psalm 34:18-19 “They cry out, and the Lord hears, and saves them from all their troubles. The Lord is close to the brokenhearted; those crushed in spirit he delievers.”

1Kings 8:46-66 is beautiful prayer by King Solomon asking for atonement through prayer and repentance, and in 1 Kings 9:3 God says he hears Solomon’s prayer.

Also, Leviticus 5:11-13 teaches us that the poorest of people who could not afford to sacrifice animals could offer GRAIN to God as a way to make atonement for their sins. Does grain have blood?

“And if his means do not suffice for two turtledoves or two pigeons, he shall bring as his offering for that of which he is guilty a tenth of an ephah of choice flour for a sin offering…Thus the priest shall make expiation on his behalf for whichever of these sins he is guilty, and he shall be forgiven.” Leviticus 5:11-13

Conclusion

Clearly all of these verses show that there can be atonement without blood. 2 Chronicles 7:14 tells us that if we humble ourselves and pray to God he will hear our prayer and forgive our sins. In Numbers 14:19-20 Moses prays to God asking him to pardon the sins of the Jewish people, and God says “I pardon, as you have asked.”

In Hosea 14:2-8 the prophet Hosea tells us to NOT offer sacrifices of animals to God but instead to give him the offerings of our lips, our prayer. And God will heal our affliction.

All throughout the book of Ezekiel we are taught how to return to God by giving up our evil ways and he will forgive us. Did any of these verses say blood is needed to make atonement? No, the claim that blood is the ONLY way to make atonement for our sins is a man made ideology, for clearly the Hebrew Bible tells us otherwise.

When people tell me that Jesus is the ONLY way to make atonement for our sins then they should know that the Hebrew bible tells me otherwise.

All throughout the Hebrew Bible God is called our “savior.” Why would I ever need someone else to save me? The God that revealed himself to my Jewish ancestors at Mt Sinai and made us his people several thousand years ago is my one and only savior.

Isaiah 43:3 “For I the Lord am your God, the Holy One of Israel, your SAVIOR.”

End of article


So your false assertion that atonement of blood exists in the hebrew Bible has been thoroughly refuted, rejected and disaproved. You have been consistantly unable to provide a shred of evidence to support your position regarding the existance of the atonement of blood in the words and teachings of ANY Prophet, Jesus or God.

So all can see looking at your posts that your false arguments have been thoroughly refuted and rejected and therefore you have failed once again to prove your position.

Therefore there is NO doubt that there is absolutely NO proof or evidence regarding the atonement of sins through blood ANYWHERE in the words or teachings of ANY Prophet, Jesus or God or ANYWHERE in the Jewish scritpures or the Hebrew Bible.

Therefore truth has prevailed over falsehood!

[Ramadhan]

40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate it in their presence. 44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” 45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46 He told them, “This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.” --- Luke 24:40-49 NIV

could you please explain to us what is ambiguous about the above?

I have read and read and read again the above passage, but I couldn't find which part of the passage above that support your earlier position
"sin is a debt which leads to death whose ONLY atonement is paid by blood"

You explain to us Sol. As far as I (and hopefully thousands of people that will continue to read this thread), there is none in the passage that suppport your belief of "sin is a debt which leads to death whose ONLY atonement is paid by blood"

[Hamza Asadullah]

I have read and read and read again the above passage, but I couldn't find which part of the passage above that support your earlier position
"sin is a debt which leads to death whose ONLY atonement is paid by blood"

You explain to us Sol. As far as I (and hopefully thousands of people that will continue to read this thread), there is none in the passage that suppport your belief of "sin is a debt which leads to death whose ONLY atonement is paid by blood"

Either he has special vision which none of us humans have where he could see things that we cannot see or he is just trying to falsely imply that which the verse CLEARLY does not imply. I would go with the latter.

[Grace Seeker]

On sin being a debt to God--
Both Anselm and later Luther wrote extensively on this. It is termed the "Satisfaction Theory" Their arguments are based on biblical text. Not all Christians agree with them (I myself find myself leaning away toward some other understandings of the atonement), but it has been the classical understanding of Christendom -- and especially protestant Christendom -- for the last 1000 years. If you want you can either look them up for yourselves in their writings or I can try to provide a brief synopsis of their views, perhaps Wednesday or Thursday.

[Woodrow]

On sin being a debt to God--
Both Anselm and later Luther wrote extensively on this. It is termed the "Satisfaction Theory" Their arguments are based on biblical text. Not all Christians agree with them (I myself find myself leaning away toward some other understandings of the atonement), but it has been the classical understanding of Christendom -- and especially protestant Christendom -- for the last 1000 years. If you want you can either look them up for yourselves in their writings or I can try to provide a brief synopsis of their views, perhaps Wednesday or Thursday.

Peace Gene,

I don't want to sidetrack the thread. but just want to point out that Anselm made much more sense than the older belief that God(swt) paid Satan the Ransom of blood atonement through Jesus(as) so that Satan would turn mankind free. (My short condensed version)

I think that fairly well ended the idea of Blood atonement, although that concept seems to have now returned among some Denominations.I don't believe in either, but Anselm made a lot more sense then the old Catholic teaching of the blood Atonement theory.

[Sol Invictus]

If we were both to give our evidences regarding the atonement to a court of law and if both evidences were to be thoroughly examined then there is absolutely NO doubt that the jury and judges will laugh at what you try to pass off as evidence or proof of your position.

interesting contention but blatantly false. it is rather easy to quote articles and think that you have made a point but be that as it may, it would seem that simply responding to the general theme of your post has not stopped you from committing the same mistake again and again and again and as such it does look like i'll have the awful task of having to deal with each quote one by one to show you why exactly your argument is so horribly wrong.

Its easy to see that the main message is to not “partake” or eat blood, because God assigned the blood of an animal to make atonement for our sins upon the altar. It’s also easy to see that now where in this passage does it say blood is the ONLY way to make atonement, it simply answers the question of how a sacrifice of an animal can make atonement.

hamza, you have just refuted yourself. i have consistently said that "the bible teaches blood atonement" and you have consistently denied this. in the above your source is basically saying that the bible teaches blood atonement (i.e. "the main message is to not “partake” or eat blood, because God assigned the blood of an animal to make atonement for our sins upon the altar")! i understand that it is rather hard to keep everything in order when relying on somebody else to make your argument for you but this does not change the fact that you have just refuted yourself. the bible does teach blood atonement, right hamza?

God can reject our sacrifices. In the book of Amos 5:21-22 the Israelites offer sacrifices to God and he rejects them, thus exemplifying the fact that blood in no way guarantees atonement. For their sacrifices were not true sacrifices. God teaches us what a true sacrifice is in Psalm 51:18-19

hamza, can you show us where any christian has ever said that blood atonement cannot be rejected? if it isn't done with the right heart then of course god will reject it. notice that you have consistently been attacking a caricature of the christian doctrine. no one has ever said that blood atonement gurantees forgiveness because it depends on the state of one's heart as they are giving their guilt offering. this is exactly like asking god for forgiveness. this in no way guarantees forgiveness because you would have to truly be sorry and ask in a true state of repentance. you have no point with the above objection and are merely trying to make your position look better by attacking things christians never say. yet given that you (or rather your source) has spent all this time disparaging christianity on this point, can you please cite us passages where christians claim that blood atonement equals automatic forgiveness? hamza i'll be waiting for this proof.

God teaches us what a true sacrifice is in Psalm 51:18-19

“You do not desire burnt offerings; true sacrifice to god is a contrite spirit; god you will not despise a contrite and crushed heart.”

Here we are specifically told that true sacrifice to God is a contrite spirit and a contrite heart. Notice no where does it say true sacrifice to God involves the use of blood. So when some people claim Jews don’t make sacrifices today I would have to disagree, for many of us give the true sacrifice of a contrite heart and spirit every single day.

the trouble with only quoting other people's words is that you cannot gurantee that they are correct unless you yourself understand what is being talked about here. notice that in the above, the individual only quotes one part of the chapter. let us see how the chapter ends:

17 My sacrifice, O God, is[b] a broken spirit;
a broken and contrite heart
you, God, will not despise.

18 May it please you to prosper Zion,
to build up the walls of Jerusalem.
19 Then you will delight in the sacrifices of the righteous,
in burnt offerings offered whole;
then bulls will be offered on your altar. --- Psalm 51:17-19 NIV

notice how david ends his psalm. basically he is claiming that one's heart has to be in the right place first before offering sacrifices as atonement for sin. this clearly refutes the above but once again i must ask you how you can use the above when you were claiming that blood atonement was never taught in the bible? are these not your words hamza?:

There is NOTHING to see there at all. I have already proven to you that the teaching of the blood atonement CANNOT be found ANYWHERE in the explicit teachings of God, Jesus or the Bible.

so how is it that you are now using an article which admits that blood atonement is taught in the bible?

I also want to quickly point out that God doesn’t even command us to sacrifice as Isaiah 7:22-23 says:

“For when I freed your fathers from the land of Egypt, I did not speak with them or command them concerning burnt offerings or sacrifice. But this is what I commanded them: do my bidding, that I may be your god and you may be my people; walk only in the way that I enjoin upon you, that it may go well with you.”

incorrect. for one thing it isn't even isaiah 7:22-23 but rather jeremiah 7:22-23. i suppose that given that you've never looked into these things yourself you never realized this. that said, the text is not saying that god didn't command the children of israel to offer blood sacrifices (because your very source earlier on says that he does when he's quoting from leviticus 17:11!) but rather that they did not form part of the 10 commandments! jewishlaw is not summed exhausted in the 10 commandments as anyone with but a basic understanding of judaism would know. so once again you and your source are twisting the bible to say what it isn't actually saying!

“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 first born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for my sins? “He has told you, o man, what is good, and what the lord requires of you: ONLY to do justice and to love goodness, and to walk modestly with your god; then will your name achieve wisdom.”

ask a jew whether he has to honour the sabbath as well. of course they would say yes so even that micah passage is not exhaustive. though the better response is that to walk humbly with one's god means to follow his ways and statutes and as such the micah passage is actually teaching blood atonement as well seeing as your source and i are agreed in the fact that this is taught in the bible.

Deut. 10:12-14 tells us exactly what God ONLY demands of us:

“And now, O Israel, what does the lord your god demand of you? ONLY this: to revere the lord your god, to walk only in his paths, to love him, and to serve the lord your god with all your heart and soul, keeping the lord’s commandments and laws, which I enjoin upon you today..."

notice what it says in bold. are you now going to claim that god does not teach substitutionary atonement in the bible? if he does teach this then once again your source has been disproven.

God doesn't even desire us to sacrifice.

( a ) Proverbs 21:3 “To do what is right and just is more desired by the lord than sacrifice.”

( b ) Hosea 6:6 “For I desire goodness, not sacrifice; Obedience to God, rather than burnt offerings.”

( c ) 1 Samuel 15:22 “does the lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obedience to the lords commands? Surely obedience is better than sacrifice”

( a ) all that the above is saying that to do what is right is better than sacrifice. no one denies this because if everyone did what was right then sacrifice would not be required. so no, your source hasn't made their point.

( b ) read the verse in context. once again it's saying that god desires righteousness more than simply going about rituals. the very chapter starts off with him punishing israel for her sins because their heart is not in the right place. furthermore, we have already seen the exact same words in the psalm 51 passage and there david says that once the children of israel come to the lord in a state of true repentance, then god will delight in their offerings and sacrifices. that said, isn't it rather funny how your points always seem to be refuted when we actual go back to these passages that are being cited? if you disagree with this, then you are certainly welcome to check out those passages for yourself and tell us why your points are at all correct.

( c ) once again the text does not say that god does not want sacrifice. instead it is saying that goodness and obedience are in fact better than these. for the fact is that if we could be perfectly good and perfectly obedient then we would not have to have sacrifice as a recourse for our sins. as if that weren't enough, the very next chapter exposes your lies when god does in fact command sacrifice:

The LORD said, “Take a heifer with you and say, ‘I have come to sacrifice to the LORD.’ 3 Invite Jesse to the sacrifice, and I will show you what to do. You are to anoint for me the one I indicate.” --- 1 Samuel 16:2-3 NIV

god could not say the above if 1 Samuel 15:22 is supposed to be a text wherein he says that he does not want sacrifice at all. once again your incorrect logic has been exposed hamza.

2 Chronicles 7:14 “when my people, who bear my name, humble themselves, pray, and seek my favor and turn from their evil ways, I will hear in my heavenly abode and forgive their sins and heal their land.”

i know that you didn't write the above and as such you would have no idea what i'm talking about hamza but really what are you trying to prove with the above? are you still going to tell me that sacrifice is not taught in the bible? especially seeing as only 7 verses earlier solomon makes a sacrifice and then makes the above prayer!

7 Solomon consecrated the middle part of the courtyard in front of the temple of the LORD, and there he offered burnt offerings and the fat of the fellowship offerings, because the bronze altar he had made could not hold the burnt offerings, the grain offerings and the fat portions. --- 2 Chronicles 7:7 NIV

so will you still say that sacrifice is never taught in the bible? were you even aware of what this source was saying before you decided to copy and paste him? and what then shall we make of the following? :

I have heard your prayer and have chosen this place for myself as a temple for sacrifices. --- 2 Chronicles 7:11 NIV

why then would god say that the temple was for sacrifices if all that was needed was just to pray for forgiveness? notice how once again your points are proven completely wrong when we actually go back to the passages themselves?

at this point, i have no use to continue knocking down your points one by one because simply from the above we can see that the quoted passages do not say what you claim they say. oftentimes, your points are refuted when we simply look at what the text says as a whole. in fact, your very source is actually contradicting what you've said! your source agrees that blood atonement is in fact taught in the bible while you have repeatedly said that it wasn't.

So your false assertion that atonement of blood exists in the hebrew Bible has been thoroughly refuted, rejected and disaproved.

hamza, did you even read the very words that you copied and pasted? your source itself agrees that blood atonement is taught in the bible! so aside from trying to make the bible say something that it doesn't say, you would now try to also twist the words of your own source? the fact is that your source actually agrees that blood atonement is indeed taught in the bible. you really ought to read the entire article before you decide to copy and paste.

Therefore there is NO doubt that there is absolutely NO proof or evidence regarding the atonement of sins through blood ANYWHERE in the words or teachings of ANY Prophet, Jesus or God or ANYWHERE in the Jewish scritpures or the Hebrew Bible.

i am reminded of the example of the court of law that you used. if we were indeed standing before the court and i claimed that blood atonement was taught in the bible and you claimed that it wasn't then you would be wrong for the new testament is quite clear on this matter. now realizing that you are in fact wrong, you would then change the question to whether blood atonement is taught in the old testament. of course you would subsequently receive curious stares seeing as your original question concerned the bible and whether christianity follows the bible (and the bible consists of the old and new testament) but be that as it may, we'd at least oblige you on this matter. anyway, once more i would say yes and you would say no but you would bring us a source that in fact agrees with me that blood atonement is taught in the old testament. so in a court of law, your witness would have contradicted you and you would end up losing the case. simple as that.

I have read and read and read again the above passage, but I couldn't find which part of the passage above that support your earlier position
"sin is a debt which leads to death whose ONLY atonement is paid by blood"

seeing as you agreed with the above words hamza, i will also direct the following to you. now, i have read and reread my eposts and couldn't find the section where i said that "sin is a debt which leads to death whose ONLY atonement is paid by blood"? can you please quote this section for us? curiously enough, i remember saying the following:

The bible describes sin as a debt whose method of payment and price is death (Romans 6:23, Hebrews 9:22) and God, since he is infinitely holy and just, requires that sin be punished; that all debts be paid. Now the nature of a debt is as such that he who has no debt can pay the debt of another. This is because a debt (in a manner of speaking) is extraneous to the individual and hence the individual is not levied for something that is absolutely inherent to his self but rather he is levied for a property that is wholly contingent to his being. [...] Therefore, given that sin is an extrinsic quality, it is possible and perfectly logical for a third party to pay the debt of sin belonging to another. Hence the feasibility of animal sacrifices in the Old Testament (Leviticus 5:11, Leviticus 17:11).

you'll find that i chose my words very carefully (which i suppose is why you had to make up a false quote). the only method of paying for sin is death (and please do not even say forgiveness because forgiveness is not paying for your sin. payment is justice, forgiveness is mercy--let us not confuse the two). because sin is paid through death, this then allows for the animal sacrifices in the old testament (which once again your source actually agrees with). you had claimed that atonement by blood was not taught in the bible and yet both myself and your source have proven you wrong.

the reason why your post failed so spectacularly hamza is because your source was responding to a somewhat similar enough argument as mine so that you, who evidently never understood the argument in the first place, could make the mistake that he was actually refuting my position when actually my argument was different enough so that the above could not apply. this once again highlights how you have not been able to grasp my argument nor even the argument that your very own source was making (for your benefit, your source is trying to show that god has forgiven without the shedding of blood and not that payment of sin can be had without death. this of course leads us to the conundrum between justice vs. mercy and i'm sure we would love for you to give us how the muslim deity harmonizes these two. for somewhere along the line, a just god must enact justice and forgiveness is not justice but rather mercy) for they aren't arguing that biblical judaism didn't teach blood atonement. anyway, you and your co-religionists are more than welcome to try to think up an answer to my question but the matter of whether blood atonement is taught in scripture is already settled.

though i do not believe that you had directed this objection at me, i must say that it's somewhat nonsensical to tell us that you don't believe the words of paul (nevermind the fact that you have been repeatedly using him when trying to prove your points---contradiction much?) when everyone here admits that the words of paul form part of christianity and this thread is trying to show a supposed flaw with a christian doctrine. given the above, the christian is certainly allowed to use the new testament in this discussion because it concerns christianity. in a similar vein, i distinctly remember saying the following:

the caveat here is that in entering this discussion, i am not at all trying to make you believe this, but merely only trying to give a logical basis for the christian belief. if it is the case that such a thing is accomplished then my task is done and your article will have been refuted.

now it is perfectly logical for the christian to use the words of paul because these also constitute the new testament. so then, if the christian belief can logically be proven from the bible then there is no problem. the only problem is that you are certainly aware of this and this is why you have been trying to disparage the words of paul with the claim that "muslims don't believe him" (which then is quite odd seeing as you are supposedly a muslim and you have used his words to try and prove your point) but this was never a case of trying to make muslims believe the words of paul but rather one of logically disproving the article that started all of this. simply in terms of logic, we are certainly warranted to use the whole bible whenever we can.

before i end this post, i'm expecting your response to consist of why my interpretation of those bible verses are wrong in your opinion, why my understanding of the position of your source are wrong in your opinion etc. if you're willing to bring out all these bible verses then you should have the decency to examine them one by one as i have.

I think that fairly well ended the idea of Blood atonement, although that concept seems to have now returned among some Denominations.I don't believe in either, but Anselm made a lot more sense then the old Catholic teaching of the blood Atonement theory.

greetings woodrow. as i recall, anselm never disagreed with blood atonement and his interpretation did not have anything to do with renouncing this idea. catholicism has never renounced blood atonement either. the nature of anselm's argument was concerning why blood atonement was made and what effects it would have and not why blood atonement was unscriptural.

[Hamza Asadullah]

interesting contention but blatantly false. it is rather easy to quote articles and think that you have made a point but be that as it may, it would seem that simply responding to the general theme of your post has not stopped you from committing the same mistake again and again and again and as such it does look like i'll have the awful task of having to deal with each quote one by one to show you why exactly your argument is so horribly wrong.


hamza, you have just refuted yourself. i have consistently said that "the bible teaches blood atonement" and you have consistently denied this. in the above your source is basically saying that the bible teaches blood atonement (i.e. "the main message is to not “partake” or eat blood, because God assigned the blood of an animal to make atonement for our sins upon the altar")! i understand that it is rather hard to keep everything in order when relying on somebody else to make your argument for you but this does not change the fact that you have just refuted yourself. the bible does teach blood atonement, right hamza?


hamza, can you show us where any christian has ever said that blood atonement cannot be rejected? if it isn't done with the right heart then of course god will reject it. notice that you have consistently been attacking a caricature of the christian doctrine. no one has ever said that blood atonement gurantees forgiveness because it depends on the state of one's heart as they are giving their guilt offering. this is exactly like asking god for forgiveness. this in no way guarantees forgiveness because you would have to truly be sorry and ask in a true state of repentance. you have no point with the above objection and are merely trying to make your position look better by attacking things christians never say. yet given that you (or rather your source) has spent all this time disparaging christianity on this point, can you please cite us passages where christians claim that blood atonement equals automatic forgiveness? hamza i'll be waiting for this proof.


the trouble with only quoting other people's words is that you cannot gurantee that they are correct unless you yourself understand what is being talked about here. notice that in the above, the individual only quotes one part of the chapter. let us see how the chapter ends:

17 My sacrifice, O God, is[b] a broken spirit;
a broken and contrite heart
you, God, will not despise.

18 May it please you to prosper Zion,
to build up the walls of Jerusalem.
19 Then you will delight in the sacrifices of the righteous,
in burnt offerings offered whole;
then bulls will be offered on your altar. --- Psalm 51:17-19 NIV

notice how david ends his psalm. basically he is claiming that one's heart has to be in the right place first before offering sacrifices as atonement for sin. this clearly refutes the above but once again i must ask you how you can use the above when you were claiming that blood atonement was never taught in the bible? are these not your words hamza?:



so how is it that you are now using an article which admits that blood atonement is taught in the bible?


incorrect. for one thing it isn't even isaiah 7:22-23 but rather jeremiah 7:22-23. i suppose that given that you've never looked into these things yourself you never realized this. that said, the text is not saying that god didn't command the children of israel to offer blood sacrifices (because your very source earlier on says that he does when he's quoting from leviticus 17:11!) but rather that they did not form part of the 10 commandments! jewishlaw is not summed exhausted in the 10 commandments as anyone with but a basic understanding of judaism would know. so once again you and your source are twisting the bible to say what it isn't actually saying!


ask a jew whether he has to honour the sabbath as well. of course they would say yes so even that micah passage is not exhaustive. though the better response is that to walk humbly with one's god means to follow his ways and statutes and as such the micah passage is actually teaching blood atonement as well seeing as your source and i are agreed in the fact that this is taught in the bible.


notice what it says in bold. are you now going to claim that god does not teach substitutionary atonement in the bible? if he does teach this then once again your source has been disproven.


( a ) all that the above is saying that to do what is right is better than sacrifice. no one denies this because if everyone did what was right then sacrifice would not be required. so no, your source hasn't made their point.

( b ) read the verse in context. once again it's saying that god desires righteousness more than simply going about rituals. the very chapter starts off with him punishing israel for her sins because their heart is not in the right place. furthermore, we have already seen the exact same words in the psalm 51 passage and there david says that once the children of israel come to the lord in a state of true repentance, then god will delight in their offerings and sacrifices. that said, isn't it rather funny how your points always seem to be refuted when we actual go back to these passages that are being cited? if you disagree with this, then you are certainly welcome to check out those passages for yourself and tell us why your points are at all correct.

( c ) once again the text does not say that god does not want sacrifice. instead it is saying that goodness and obedience are in fact better than these. for the fact is that if we could be perfectly good and perfectly obedient then we would not have to have sacrifice as a recourse for our sins. as if that weren't enough, the very next chapter exposes your lies when god does in fact command sacrifice:

The LORD said, “Take a heifer with you and say, ‘I have come to sacrifice to the LORD.’ 3 Invite Jesse to the sacrifice, and I will show you what to do. You are to anoint for me the one I indicate.” --- 1 Samuel 16:2-3 NIV

god could not say the above if 1 Samuel 15:22 is supposed to be a text wherein he says that he does not want sacrifice at all. once again your incorrect logic has been exposed hamza.


i know that you didn't write the above and as such you would have no idea what i'm talking about hamza but really what are you trying to prove with the above? are you still going to tell me that sacrifice is not taught in the bible? especially seeing as only 7 verses earlier solomon makes a sacrifice and then makes the above prayer!

7 Solomon consecrated the middle part of the courtyard in front of the temple of the LORD, and there he offered burnt offerings and the fat of the fellowship offerings, because the bronze altar he had made could not hold the burnt offerings, the grain offerings and the fat portions. --- 2 Chronicles 7:7 NIV

so will you still say that sacrifice is never taught in the bible? were you even aware of what this source was saying before you decided to copy and paste him? and what then shall we make of the following? :

I have heard your prayer and have chosen this place for myself as a temple for sacrifices. --- 2 Chronicles 7:11 NIV

why then would god say that the temple was for sacrifices if all that was needed was just to pray for forgiveness? notice how once again your points are proven completely wrong when we actually go back to the passages themselves?

at this point, i have no use to continue knocking down your points one by one because simply from the above we can see that the quoted passages do not say what you claim they say. oftentimes, your points are refuted when we simply look at what the text says as a whole. in fact, your very source is actually contradicting what you've said! your source agrees that blood atonement is in fact taught in the bible while you have repeatedly said that it wasn't.


hamza, did you even read the very words that you copied and pasted? your source itself agrees that blood atonement is taught in the bible! so aside from trying to make the bible say something that it doesn't say, you would now try to also twist the words of your own source? the fact is that your source actually agrees that blood atonement is indeed taught in the bible. you really ought to read the entire article before you decide to copy and paste.


i am reminded of the example of the court of law that you used. if we were indeed standing before the court and i claimed that blood atonement was taught in the bible and you claimed that it wasn't then you would be wrong for the new testament is quite clear on this matter. now realizing that you are in fact wrong, you would then change the question to whether blood atonement is taught in the old testament. of course you would subsequently receive curious stares seeing as your original question concerned the bible and whether christianity follows the bible (and the bible consists of the old and new testament) but be that as it may, we'd at least oblige you on this matter. anyway, once more i would say yes and you would say no but you would bring us a source that in fact agrees with me that blood atonement is taught in the old testament. so in a court of law, your witness would have contradicted you and you would end up losing the case. simple as that.


seeing as you agreed with the above words hamza, i will also direct the following to you. now, i have read and reread my eposts and couldn't find the section where i said that "sin is a debt which leads to death whose ONLY atonement is paid by blood"? can you please quote this section for us? curiously enough, i remember saying the following:


you'll find that i chose my words very carefully (which i suppose is why you had to make up a false quote). the only method of paying for sin is death (and please do not even say forgiveness because forgiveness is not paying for your sin. payment is justice, forgiveness is mercy--let us not confuse the two). because sin is paid through death, this then allows for the animal sacrifices in the old testament (which once again your source actually agrees with). you had claimed that atonement by blood was not taught in the bible and yet both myself and your source have proven you wrong.

the reason why your post failed so spectacularly hamza is because your source was responding to a somewhat similar enough argument as mine so that you, who evidently never understood the argument in the first place, could make the mistake that he was actually refuting my position when actually my argument was different enough so that the above could not apply. this once again highlights how you have not been able to grasp my argument nor even the argument that your very own source was making (for your benefit, your source is trying to show that god has forgiven without the shedding of blood and not that payment of sin can be had without death. this of course leads us to the conundrum between justice vs. mercy and i'm sure we would love for you to give us how the muslim deity harmonizes these two. for somewhere along the line, a just god must enact justice and forgiveness is not justice but rather mercy) for they aren't arguing that biblical judaism didn't teach blood atonement. anyway, you and your co-religionists are more than welcome to try to think up an answer to my question but the matter of whether blood atonement is taught in scripture is already settled.

though i do not believe that you had directed this objection at me, i must say that it's somewhat nonsensical to tell us that you don't believe the words of paul (nevermind the fact that you have been repeatedly using him when trying to prove your points---contradiction much?) when everyone here admits that the words of paul form part of christianity and this thread is trying to show a supposed flaw with a christian doctrine. given the above, the christian is certainly allowed to use the new testament in this discussion because it concerns christianity. in a similar vein, i distinctly remember saying the following:



now it is perfectly logical for the christian to use the words of paul because these also constitute the new testament. so then, if the christian belief can logically be proven from the bible then there is no problem. the only problem is that you are certainly aware of this and this is why you have been trying to disparage the words of paul with the claim that "muslims don't believe him" (which then is quite odd seeing as you are supposedly a muslim and you have used his words to try and prove your point) but this was never a case of trying to make muslims believe the words of paul but rather one of logically disproving the article that started all of this. simply in terms of logic, we are certainly warranted to use the whole bible whenever we can.

before i end this post, i'm expecting your response to consist of why my interpretation of those bible verses are wrong in your opinion, why my understanding of the position of your source are wrong in your opinion etc. if you're willing to bring out all these bible verses then you should have the decency to examine them one by one as i have.

Greetings Sol,

The ONLY references to the explicit teachings of the blood atonement in the Bible are ONLY FOUND IN THE WORDS OF PAUL AND NOT OF ANY PROPHET, GOD OR JESUS.

Surely if Paul brought in this pagan concept into Christian in the first place then obviously he is going to try and push it as being a teaching of the scriptures when it NEVER was!

Is it not strange Sol that such a fundamental concept such as the blood atonement is NOT BY taught or spoken of by any Prophet, Jesus or God but brought in AFTER Jesus by Paul himself.

Why would God or Jesus or ANY other Prophet NEVER make mention of such a concept? Did God or Jesus forget to make mention of it? NO!

It is because it never was and never has been a teaching of ANY Prophet, Jesus or God but again a concept which was brought in by the biggest of deceivers Paul!

That is why you keep failing in EVERY single post to be able to prove your utterly weak position because the ONLY mention of the explicit teachings of the blood atonement are found in the words of Paul who is the founder of the concept. Other than that neither Jesus, nor God nor does any other Prophet of God EVER mention this pagan concept.

God or Jesus NEVER talked about atonement or a "free-ride" through the blood of an innocent man.

On the contrary Jesus said, "If you would enter life, keep the commandments" (Matthew 19:17).


It was Paul who brought the concept of blood atonement of sin into Christianity. A concept NEVER found ANYWHERE else. AS concept so cruel, troubling and disturbing that it condems an unborn baby who died before baptism TO ETERNAL DOOM!

Jesus CLEARLY contradicts Paul. Not only that, the Old Testament ALSO contradicts Paul as well:


Ezekiel 18:20-22

[20] The soul that sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

[21] "But if a wicked man turns away from all his sins which he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die.

[22] None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; for the righteousness which he has done he shall live. 2 Chronicles 25:4

[4] But he did not put their children to death, according to what is written in the law, in the book of Moses, where the LORD commanded, "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, or the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall die for his own sin."

It is Paul who actually transformed the strict monotheism that Jesus proclaimed into a religion that is closer to Greek mythology, than it is towards either Judaism or Islam. Things like the "only begotten son", atonement for the sins of humanity etc. were all alien to the strict monotheism of Abraham, Jesus, Muhammad and ALL the prophets of Israel (Peace be upon them all).

The great theologian Soren Kierkegaard says regarding Paul: "In the teachings of Christ, religion is completely present tense: Jesus is the prototype and our task is to imitate him, become a disciple. But then through Paul came a basic alteration. Paul draws attention away from imitating Christ and fixes attention on the death of Christ The Atoner. What Martin Luther. in his reformation, failed to realize is that even before Catholicism, Christianity had become degenerate at the hands of Paul. Paul made Christianity the religion of Paul, not of Christ Paul threw the Christianity of Christ away, completely turning it upside down. making it just the opposite of the original proclamation of Christ"

Paul is claiming that this ideology is supported by the scriptures, and in this case he is making reference to the Hebrew Scriptures, or The Tanach. However, one will find that this idea of an innocent man, in this case Jesus, having to pay for the sins of others is NOWHERE to be found in the Hebrew Bible. In actuality, it is the exact opposite that is found in the Hebrew Scriptures;


“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. “But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statuses and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him; in his righteousness that he hath done, he shall live.” Ezekiel 18:20-22

Without question, this passage runs in direct contrast with what we find in the teachings of Paul, and it also proves that Paul’s claim that his teachings are in accordance with the scriptures is TOTALLY FALSE.

The spilling of innocent blood for the redemption of mankind is a belief that has its roots in paganism and was adopted into Christianity by none other than Paul himself which was then solidified as dogma at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D.

Blood atonement was NEVER a teaching of Jesus, nor did he EVER make mention of it.


the Bible is quite clear on the issue of sins being forgiven at the spilling of blood;


“To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifice unto Me?, saith the Lord. I am full of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks or of lamb or of he-goats.” Isaiah 1:11



The Bible itself actually makes it quite clear that forgiveness from sins comes from one’s sincerity in seeking forgiveness from Almighty God and from obedience to Him;


“Will I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats? Offer unto God thanksgiving; and pay thy vows unto the most High” Psalms 50:13-14

“I desired not sacrifices; I commanded not your fathers, when I stretched forth my hand to bring them out of Egypt, to offer burnt -- offerings to me, but only to obey my voice.” Jeremiah 7:21-22

And as for the innocent being made to pay for the sins of others, the Bible is also quite clear in that respect as well;


“And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses said unto the people, ‘Ye have sinned a great sin: and now I will go up unto the LORD; peradventure I shall make an atonement for your sin.’ And Moses returned unto the LORD, and said, ‘Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold. Yet now, if Thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of Thy book which Thou hast written.’ And the LORD said unto Moses, ‘Whosoever hath sinned against Me, him will I blot out of My book.’” Exodus 32:30-33


And from the words of Jesus himself one can also conclude that his true teachings where in perfect harmony with these mentioned passages;


“For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.” Matthew 5:20


“For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.” Matthew 6:14-15


SO MANY examples can be used from the Bible that one is hard pressed in understanding how a Christian can claim to adhere to the Bible, and yet follow a totally opposite course. Here is yet further examples of what the Bible says;


“The fathers shall not be put to death for the children; neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.” Deuteronomy 24:16


“But the children of the murderers he put not to death; according to that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, as the Lord commanded, saying, ‘The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall die for his own sin.’” 2 Kings 14:6


“But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.” Jeremiah 31:30


Again, the Bible states clearly how salvation can be achieved;


“If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.” 2 Chronicles 7:14


“Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.” Isaiah 55:7

Therefore once again you have UTTERLY failed to provide ANY shred of evidence or proof of the teaching of the blood atonement in the explicit words and teachings of any Prophet, God or Jesus.

There is NO doubt that you have NO case whatsoever and if you took your pathetic excuse for proof to a court of law then the judges and jury would only laugh at you and think are you actually trying to take them for fools.

I have also DISAPPROVED your false assertion that the blood atonement of sin is taught in the Hebrew Bible by providing vast evidences from the article in my last post which has exposed the lies you have tried to attribute to the Hebrew Bible.

So ONCE AGAIN SOL YOU ARE THOROUGHLY PROVEN wrong and your position utterly fails!

[Hamza Asadullah]

You still have NOT answered my question Sol, If an unborn baby and a baby or child die before they get baptised then is there a chance they could burn in Hell FOREVER?

Your Christian friend Gmcbroom confirms this:

you could argue that babies are man at his most egoistical. How? Easy, all they do is want, want, want; they don't listen to reason. If you argue with a baby you'll lose because their way is the only way. Babies from a psychological point of view are pure Id.

So while we don't want to think of babies condemned to hell, if they aren't baptised they may go there. This is why some Christians practice infant baptism. Those that don't usually don't understand the consequences of it. Even though it's in the bible to perform infant baptism.

I admire his honesty that he is firm in his beliefs as a Christian in that ALL infants, babies and unborn babies who were not baptised may be destined to burn in Hell FOREVER.

However my admiration of his honesty on this matter cannot be extended to you Sol who has been consistently dishonest about his beliefs and the fact that unborn babies, infants and children who are not baptised may burn in Hell forever.

Therefore it is clear that either you refuse to accept this belief or that you rejects the blood atonement of sin altogether.

[Sol Invictus]

The ONLY references to the explicit teachings of the blood atonement in the Bible are ONLY FOUND IN THE WORDS OF PAUL AND NOT OF ANY PROPHET, GOD OR JESUS.

hamza, who are you kidding. your own source who is a jew just said that blood atonement was taught in the bible! it's funny how you would just cast aside your source like this.

I have also DISAPPROVED your false assertion that the blood atonement of sin is taught in the Hebrew Bible by providing vast evidences from the article in my last post which has exposed the lies you have tried to attribute to the Hebrew Bible.

are you saying that your source is lying as well? the very article you quoted said that blood atonement was taught in the bible. so let me get this straight. when your own article says that god commanded blood atonement, they are actually saying that god did not command blood atonement. right.

It was Paul who brought the concept of blood atonement of sin into Christianity.

really? so your source is actually agreeing with the words of paul even though they are clearly jewish and not christian?

you bring up the very same points that i have already refuted in my last post. it would seem that all you can do is simply copy and paste things. i had told you that if you were going to disagree with my words that you would have to analyze what was being said. i actually took the time to go back and put the passages in context. you have not and you even went so far s to contradict yourself by citing a source which actually agrees with blood atonement being taught in the bible!

hamza, you have given us no answers except for reiterating your position which has already been shown to be faulty. if you're going to try to save your faulty argument then at least go back and start answering my arguments one by one as i have done with your yours. or is it perhaps the case that you are intellectually unable to?

[Sol Invictus]

You still have NOT answered my question Sol, If an unborn baby and a baby or child die before they get baptised then is there a chance they could burn in Hell FOREVER?

Your Christian friend Gmcbroom confirms this:

I admire his honesty that he is firm in his beliefs as a Christian in that ALL infants, babies and unborn babies who were not baptised may be destined to burn in Hell FOREVER.

However my admiration of his honesty on this matter cannot be extended to you Sol who has been consistently dishonest about his beliefs and the fact that unborn babies, infants and children who are not baptised may burn in Hell forever.

Therefore it is clear that either you refuse to accept this belief or that you rejects the blood atonement of sin altogether.

let me get this straight, so simply because another christian said this then it must be true? so if i were to now quote the words of so-called moderate muslims (who ask for the removal of the hadith collection etc.) and terrorists (who hold that all non-muslims merit death at the hands of muslims) then this is the correct islamic view as well? the double-standard is incredible.

this however does not change the fact that you have just quoted from the jewish position and they have said that blood atonement is taught in the bible and now you are pretending that they didn't say this!

[Ramadhan]

your own source who is a jew just said that blood atonement was taught in the bible!

was it blood atonement of animals or of humans that was taught in bible, Sol?

are you saying that your source is lying as well? the very article you quoted said that blood atonement was taught in the bible. so let me get this straight. when your own article says that god commanded blood atonement, they are actually saying that god did not command blood atonement. right.

Was it blood atonement of human or animals? surely human and animals are different, no? Or are you saying that humans sacrifices are taught in judaism?

[Hamza Asadullah]

hamza, who are you kidding. your own source who is a jew just said that blood atonement was taught in the bible! it's funny how you would just cast aside your source like this.


are you saying that your source is lying as well? the very article you quoted said that blood atonement was taught in the bible. so let me get this straight. when your own article says that god commanded blood atonement, they are actually saying that god did not command blood atonement. right.


really? so your source is actually agreeing with the words of paul even though they are clearly jewish and not christian?

you bring up the very same points that i have already refuted in my last post. it would seem that all you can do is simply copy and paste things. i had told you that if you were going to disagree with my words that you would have to analyze what was being said. i actually took the time to go back and put the passages in context. you have not and you even went so far s to contradict yourself by citing a source which actually agrees with blood atonement being taught in the bible!

hamza, you have given us no answers except for reiterating your position which has already been shown to be faulty. if you're going to try to save your faulty argument then at least go back and start answering my arguments one by one as i have done with your yours. or is it perhaps the case that you are intellectually unable to?

Sol I have just stated in my last post that the only places in the Bible that contain the teachings of the blood atonement are IN THE WORDS OF PAUL AND NOT ANY OTHER PROPHET, GOD OR JESUS!

My article also affirms this but at the same time it THOROUGHLY refutes your false assertion that the blood atonement is taught in the Hebrew Bible!

My position throughout this thread has been backed up by evidences and proofs whilst you have been UNABLE to refute or disprove a single point and you have therefore continuously strengthened my position!

I keep on asking you for proof and evidences from the explicit teachings and words of God and Jesus and any other Prophet of the teaching of the blood atonement of sin but why do you keep failing to do so? WHY can you not provide any proof? Simply because it does NOT exist in ANY teaching or words of ANY Prophet, Jesus or God.

Therefore all you can do is clutch to straws whilst my vast evidences stand as proof of my position regarding the fact that there are NO teachings of the blood atonement ANYWHERE in the words of ANY Prophet, Jesus or God nor is this pagan concept taught ANYWHERE in the Hebrew Bible. But it is a concept brought in by Paul who contradicted Jesus and his teachings to bring in his own pagan beliefs and practises.

[Ramadhan]

Oh by the way sol, does judaism require blood for atonement must be spilt in a certain place?

Can we have a look again at those blood atonement verses?

[Hamza Asadullah]

let me get this straight, so simply because another christian said this then it must be true? so if i were to now quote the words of so-called moderate muslims (who ask for the removal of the hadith collection etc.) and terrorists (who hold that all non-muslims merit death at the hands of muslims) then this is the correct islamic view as well? the double-standard is incredible.

this however does not change the fact that you have just quoted from the jewish position and they have said that blood atonement is taught in the bible and now you are pretending that they didn't say this!

So what is Gmcbroom? Not a Christian? Or is he a hardliner deviated from the right path? Tell us in order for us to gain clarification....

You keep avoiding the question Sol I have not been able to receive a clear answer from you as yet. ANSWER THE QUESTION!

[Hamza Asadullah]

Oh by the way sol, does judaism require blood for atonement must be spilt in a certain place?

Can we have a look again at those blood atonement verses?

There's no point brother Naidamar he will NEVER answer any questions head on. He is good at avoiding direct questions and diverting away from the real issues because he KNOWS he CANNOT answer them.

[Ramadhan]

As far as I know, Sol has not provided direct evidence from Jesus (p) sayings that He spilt his blood to atone the sins of mankind.

[Hamza Asadullah]

As far as I know, Sol has not provided direct evidence from Jesus (p) sayings that He spilt his blood to atone the sins of mankind.

He can't because there is NONE. Nor are these teachings consistent with that of ANY other prophet or were they EVER even uttered or taught by Jesus by they are ONLY found in the teachings of the Paul who brought these pagan beliefs and practices into Christianity from his liking and influence of Greek mythology.

He REFUSES to answer a single point that has been raised but instead constantly diverts away from direct questions.

Is there any point discussing anything with such a person?

[Ramadhan]

There's no point brother Naidamar he will NEVER answer any questions head on. He is good at avoiding direct questions and diverting away from the real issues because he KNOWS he CANNOT answer them.

It makes me wonder if Sol Invictus is actually a troll. He surely does write a lot of words, but you are right, he never directly answered plain questions. It's always a lot of smoke and mirror.

[Sol Invictus]

was it blood atonement of animals or of humans that was taught in bible, Sol?

the crucial point was blood atonement itself. but you have posed a very good question and let us actually see what the old testament says followed by what jews themselves have said:

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.

6 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.

[...]

10 Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the LORD makes his life an offering for sin

[...]

12 For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.

--- Isaiah 53:5-6, 10, 12 NIV (do read the entire chapter when you get the chance)

the text explicitly says that the life of the individual in question is being made an offering for sin. now we can speculate all we want but let us see who jews have believed that the person in question is:

"The Holy One gave Messiah the opportunity to save souls but to be severely chastised: and forthwith the Messiah accepted the chastisements of love, as is written, "He was oppressed, and he was afflicted." And when Israel is sinful, the Messiah seeks mercy upon them, as it is written, "By his stripes we were healed," and "He carried the sins of many and made intercession for the trangressors.""* (Bere****h Rabbah, Rabbi Moshe Hadershan)

Rabbinical Elijah the prophet quote: "Bear the suffering and punishment of thy Lord, with which he chastises thee for the sins of Israel, as it is written, 'He is pressed for our rebellion--crushed for our iniquities' until the end come." * (Midrash Cohen, BhM, 2:29)

"And when Israel is sinful, the Messiah seeks for mercy upon them, as it is written, "By His stripes we were healed, and He carried the sins of many; and made intercession for the transgressors."** (B're****h Rabbah)

Referring to Zech 12:10-12, "R. Dosa says: '(They will mourn) over the Messiah who will be slain.' " **(B. Suk. 52a; also Y. Suk. 55b)

so apparently it isn't antithetical to judaism to suppose that the messiah will bear the sins of others.

[Ramadhan]

the crucial point was blood atonement itself. but you have posed a very good question and let us actually see what the old testament says followed by what jews themselves have said: 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. 6 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. [...] 10 Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life an offering for sin [...] 12 For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. --- Isaiah 53:5-6, 10, 12 NIV (do read the entire chapter when you get the chance) the text explicitly says that the life of the individual in question is being made an offering for sin. now we can speculate all we want but let us see who jews have believed that the person in question is: "The Holy One gave Messiah the opportunity to save souls but to be severely chastised: and forthwith the Messiah accepted the chastisements of love, as is written, "He was oppressed, and he was afflicted." And when Israel is sinful, the Messiah seeks mercy upon them, as it is written, "By his stripes we were healed," and "He carried the sins of many and made intercession for the trangressors.""* (Bere****h Rabbah, Rabbi Moshe Hadershan) Rabbinical Elijah the prophet quote: "Bear the suffering and punishment of thy Lord, with which he chastises thee for the sins of Israel, as it is written, 'He is pressed for our rebellion--crushed for our iniquities' until the end come." * (Midrash Cohen, BhM, 2:29) "And when Israel is sinful, the Messiah seeks for mercy upon them, as it is written, "By His stripes we were healed, and He carried the sins of many; and made intercession for the transgressors."** (B're****h Rabbah) Referring to Zech 12:10-12, "R. Dosa says: '(They will mourn) over the Messiah who will be slain.' " **(B. Suk. 52a; also Y. Suk. 55b) so apparently it isn't antithetical to judaism to suppose that the messiah will bear the sins of others.

A lot of words, Sol, but where does it say that God require human life to as the method to pay for the sins?

Also, human sacrifices are strictly banned in judaism is it not?

Or did Jesus ever taught human sacrifice was the method to pay for sins?

Please give us direct passages from Jesus or previous prophets, Sol.

[Sol Invictus]

A lot of words, Sol, but where does it say that God require human life to as the method to pay for the sins?

does or doesn't the text say that the individual is being made an offering for sin?

This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. --- Matt. 16:28 NIV

are the above the words of jesus? yes. does he claim that his blood is being poured for the forgiveness of sins? yes.

Please give us direct passages from Jesus or previous prophets, Sol.

the very post you have cited contains explicit words by previous prophets and yet you refuse to believe this.

[Sol Invictus]

though i do not believe that you had directed this objection at me, i must say that it's somewhat nonsensical to tell us that you don't believe the words of paul (nevermind the fact that you have been repeatedly using him when trying to prove your points---contradiction much?) when everyone here admits that the words of paul form part of christianity and this thread is trying to show a supposed flaw with a christian doctrine. given the above, the christian is certainly allowed to use the new testament in this discussion because it concerns christianity. in a similar vein, i distinctly remember saying the following:

the caveat here is that in entering this discussion, i am not at all trying to make you believe this, but merely only trying to give a logical basis for the christian belief. if it is the case that such a thing is accomplished then my task is done and your article will have been refuted.

now it is perfectly logical for the christian to use the words of paul because these also constitute the new testament. so then, if the christian belief can logically be proven from the bible then there is no problem. the only problem is that you are certainly aware of this and this is why you have been trying to disparage the words of paul with the claim that "muslims don't believe him" (which then is quite odd seeing as you are supposedly a muslim and you have used his words to try and prove your point) but this was never a case of trying to make muslims believe the words of paul but rather one of logically disproving the article that started all of this. simply in terms of logic, we are certainly warranted to use the whole bible whenever we can.

before i end this post, i'm expecting your response to consist of why my interpretation of those bible verses are wrong in your opinion, why my understanding of the position of your source are wrong in your opinion etc. if you're willing to bring out all these bible verses then you should have the decency to examine them one by one as i have.

do get to answering the above hamza.

[Hamza Asadullah]

the crucial point was blood atonement itself. but you have posed a very good question and let us actually see what the old testament says followed by what jews themselves have said:

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.

6 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.

[...]

10 Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the LORD makes his life an offering for sin

[...]

12 For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.

--- Isaiah 53:5-6, 10, 12 NIV (do read the entire chapter when you get the chance)

the text explicitly says that the life of the individual in question is being made an offering for sin. now we can speculate all we want but let us see who jews have believed that the person in question is:

"The Holy One gave Messiah the opportunity to save souls but to be severely chastised: and forthwith the Messiah accepted the chastisements of love, as is written, "He was oppressed, and he was afflicted." And when Israel is sinful, the Messiah seeks mercy upon them, as it is written, "By his stripes we were healed," and "He carried the sins of many and made intercession for the trangressors.""* (Bere****h Rabbah, Rabbi Moshe Hadershan)

Rabbinical Elijah the prophet quote: "Bear the suffering and punishment of thy Lord, with which he chastises thee for the sins of Israel, as it is written, 'He is pressed for our rebellion--crushed for our iniquities' until the end come." * (Midrash Cohen, BhM, 2:29)

"And when Israel is sinful, the Messiah seeks for mercy upon them, as it is written, "By His stripes we were healed, and He carried the sins of many; and made intercession for the transgressors."** (B're****h Rabbah)

Referring to Zech 12:10-12, "R. Dosa says: '(They will mourn) over the Messiah who will be slain.' " **(B. Suk. 52a; also Y. Suk. 55b)

so apparently it isn't antithetical to judaism to suppose that the messiah will bear the sins of others.

Sol I have already proven to you without a doubt that the Jewish position regarding sin is NOTHING more than the belief of sin being a personal responsibility and that the blood atonement is NOT taught ANYWHERE in the Hebrew Bible but ONLY of that of the Muslim position which is sin being forgiven by sincere repentance and the mercy of God along not the blood of Christ, animals or any other human which is CLEARLY a pagan belief and EVERY Jew can CLEARLY see as was proven to you that this pagan concept has NO basis in the Hebrew Bible NOR in ANY teaching of ANY Prophet, Jesus or God.

Sol every Prophet sacrificed their lives for their people. Even the Prophet when he was on his death bed wanted to take the burden of pain of all of his people. There is NO doubt that Christ was the same and that he sacrificed his life in order to re-establish the laws of Moses and that he sacrificed his life so that his people would be saved from the fire. Therefore he devoted his life in order to save his people from worshipping other than God so that they may gain eternal salvation and this is consistent with ALL the Prophets and messengers whom God sent to the Earth to their people.

This is also consistent with the sayings and teachings of God and Jesus in the Bible so there is NO doubt that Jesus came to save his people and devoted his whole life to that as that was his purpose but for you have failed to attribute something which has NO basis in ANY of the teachings or words of ANY Prophet, Jesus, God or in the Hebrew Bible. So again you are trying to attribute something to the verses which is CLEARLY NOT there.

Everyone can see that and deep down you now that to but you continue to clutch at straws and i hope God opens your heart to the truth so that you may see that these concepts are NOTHING but pagan beliefs attributed to Jesus.

[Sol Invictus]

Sol every Prophet sacrificed their lives for their people. Even the Prophet when he was on his death bed wanted to take the burden of pain of all of his people.

that is not what the text is saying. the text specifically calls him an offering for sin. furthermore, if you cared at all to look into the matter you would see that it was only the messiah who would bear the sins of others and no other prophet. in fact, in judaism there is even an exchange where moses (arguably the greatest prophet in judaism) was not allowed to bear the sins of others and as such you have been refuted. your revisionism is wholly false. furthermore, my quotes from the rabbis actually are quite clear in the fact that the messiah would die as an offering for the sins of others.

[Hamza Asadullah]

does or doesn't the text say that the individual is being made an offering for sin?

This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. --- Matt. 16:28 NIV

are the above the words of jesus? yes. does he claim that his blood is being poured for the forgiveness of sins? yes.


the very post you have cited contains explicit words by previous prophets and yet you refuse to believe this.

Sol are we all blind or can you see something we CANNOT?

WHERE in the verse does it EXPLICITLY teach that of the blood of Christ is necessary for the atonement of sin? Where does it teach this pagan belief?

Sol how many times must you continuously expose your deceptive nature? You keep implying the verses mean that which they do not when I have already proven to you using the words of Jesus and God that there is NO such teaching yet you get vague verses and try to interpret them according to your desires.

Anyone reading can see how desperate you have become. A very sad state of affairs

[Sol Invictus]

WHERE in the verse does it EXPLICITLY teach that of the blood of Christ is necessary for the atonement of sin?

according to the text, is the blood of christ being poured out for the forgiveness of sin or not?

that said, the only desperate individual is yourself hamza--your own source has contradicted you and so have both the new and old testament.

[Sol Invictus]

in fact, there are two jewish perspectives to how isaiah 53 can be understood. one is that it is specifically speaking of the messiah, the other, it is speaking of the jews collectively (or only a few righteous jews) yet both interpretations admit that the individual(s) in question are literally bearing the sins of everyone else and as such are a true sacrifice. hence, no matter how you try and play this, whether you try to go with modern judaism or biblical judaism, they are both agreed in the fact that the verse in question has to do with an individual bearing the sins of the world.

[Ramadhan]

does or doesn't the text say that the individual is being made an offering for sin? This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. --- Matt. 16:28 NIV are the above the words of jesus? yes. does he claim that his blood is being poured for the forgiveness of sins? yes.

What kind of bible are you using, solinvectus?

Here's Matthew 16:28 from several versions of bible:

New World Translation 28 Truly I say to YOU that there are some of those standing here that will not taste death at all until first they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.”
New International Version (©1984)
I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."New Living Translation (©2007)
And I tell you the truth, some standing here right now will not die before they see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom."
English Standard Version (©2001)
Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."
International Standard Version (©2008)
I tell you with certainty, some people standing here will not experience death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
I can guarantee this truth: Some people who are standing here will not die until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."
King James Bible
Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
American King James Version
Truly I say to you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
American Standard Version
Verily I say unto you, there are some of them that stand here, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Bible in Basic English
Truly I say to you, There are some of those here who will not have a taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Douay-Rheims Bible
Amen I say to you, there are some of them that stand here, that shall not taste death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Darby Bible Translation
Verily I say unto you, There are some of those standing here that shall not taste of death at all until they shall have seen the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
English Revised Version
Verily I say unto you, There be some of them that stand here, which shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Webster's Bible Translation
Verily I say to you, There are some standing here, who shall not taste death, till they shall see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Weymouth New Testament
I solemnly tell you that some of those who are standing here will certainly not taste death till they have seen the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom."
World English Bible
Most certainly I tell you, there are some standing here who will in no way taste of death, until they see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom."
Young's Literal Translation
Verily I say to you, there are certain of those standing here who shall not taste of death till they may see the Son of Man coming in his reign.'

the very post you have cited contains explicit words by previous prophets and yet you refuse to believe this.

Please make the part bold and you can enlarge the size to size 10 if you want. Where were the prophets say that human sacrifices were the method of payment of sins?

Show us, solinvectus.

Sol, this is what Jesus said:

[Sol Invictus]

that's right, it's matthew 26:28 (i have repeatedly quoted this throughout this thread). now can you please answer the question naidamar? does it or does it not state that christ's blood is being poured for the forgiveness of sin?

[Ramadhan]

Sol are we all blind or can you see something we CANNOT? WHERE in the verse does it EXPLICITLY teach that of the blood of Christ is necessary for the atonement of sin? Where does it teach this pagan belief? Sol how many times must you continuously expose your deceptive nature? You keep implying the verses mean that which they do not when I have already proven to you using the words of Jesus and God that there is NO such teaching yet you get vague verses and try to interpret them according to your desires. Anyone reading can see how desperate you have become. A very sad state of affairs

Not only that, the verse that he quoted, Matthew 16:28, actually is not what he posted above.

[Hamza Asadullah]

that is not what the text is saying. the text specifically calls him an offering for sin. furthermore, if you cared at all to look into the matter you would see that it was only the messiah who would bear the sins of others and no other prophet. in fact, in judaism there is even an exchange where moses (arguably the greatest prophet in judaism) was not allowed to bear the sins of others and as such you have been refuted. your revisionism is wholly false. furthermore, my quotes from the rabbis actually are quite clear in the fact that the messiah would die as an offering for the sins of others.

The verse is DEFINITELY NOT saying what you are trying to imply it is saying. You have NOTHING to prove your position thus out of desperation you re-interpret the verse to try and seem like it is implying what you want it to imply.

Jews believe that we do not need a blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins.

By Rabbi Stuart Federow

This means that even if God allowed another to die for your sins, you do not need Jesus or any other blood sacrifice to die in order for your sins to be forgiven.
IN SHORT... If one believed that a blood sacrifice was necessary before God would forgive you, then even one example where God forgave without a blood sacrifice would prove that this idea is UnBiblical. There are many such examples, but the most interesting is found in the Book of Leviticus. The reason this is so interesting is that it comes right in the middle of the discussion of sin sacrifices, which is found in the first chapters. In Leviticus 5:11-13, it states, "If, however, he cannot afford two doves or two young pigeons, he is to bring as an offering for his sin a tenth of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering." One can also see that one does not need a blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins in the Book of Jonah 3:10. There, the Bible simply states that God saw the works of the people of Ninevah. Specifically it says that the works God saw were that they stopped doing evil, and so God forgave them. There are plenty of other examples, and the idea that one needs a blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins is UnBiblical.

A FULL EXPLANATION...

The God-man relationship was never limited to the animal sacrifices, nor was it ever the only means by which a human being obtained forgiveness from God for sin.
The centrality of the animal sacrifices ceased, not with the second destruction of the Temple by the Romans, but rather with the first destruction of the Temple by the Babylonians. Please remember that the vast majority of Jews never returned to the Promised Land under Cyrus of Persia. They remained in Babylonia. By the time Jesus was born, eighty percent of the world's Jewish community lived outside of the Promised Land, and could not have cared less about the cessation of the animal sacrifices. When the Temple was reestablished, the Jews of Babylonia made an annual financial gift for the maintenance of the Temple, and the land, but never worried that God was not going to forgive them their sins without a blood sacrifice, just as Diaspora Jews do today. And the reason why they had no such fear, was that the Bible makes it explicitly clear that no blood sacrifice is necessary for the forgiveness of sins, or that the exclusive means for the God-man relationship was through the animal sacrifices.
Those who believe that one must have a blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins look to Leviticus 17:11, which reads:

For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life." [Leviticus 17:11]

But if you read the whole context of this verse, you will find that it is in reference to abstaining from eating the blood of a sacrifice, and nothing more. God commanded the abstaining from eating or drinking blood because most other pagan religions ate the blood of their sacrifices as a way to incorporate their gods into their bodies and into their lives. (See The Golden Bough by Sir James Frazer, the chapter on "Eating The God." Perhaps this is the source of ritual communion?) But the Holiness of the People of Israel requires them to not practice the pagan ways and not to hold the same beliefs of their pagan neighbors.
The whole quotation from Leviticus 17 reads:

Any Israelite or any alien living among them who eats any blood-- I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people. For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life. Therefore I say to the Israelites, `None of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood. Any Israelite or any alien living among you who hunts any animal or bird that may be eaten must drain out the blood and cover it with earth, because the life of every creature is its blood.' That is why I have said to the Israelites, `You must not eat the blood of any creature, because the life of every creature is its blood; anyone who eats it must be cut off.'"

Many might still insist that blood is needed to atone for sins. But there are many examples in the TaNaCh where other things besides blood atone for sins. If you are poor and unable to afford a blood sacrifice, God allows you to use flour (which has no blood and is not an animal!). If the poor were not able to offer a sacrifice of flour, forgiveness would only be for the wealthy. God would never exclude humans from obtaining forgiveness on the basis of wealth.
If, however, he cannot afford two doves or two young pigeons, he is to bring as an offering for his sin a tenth of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering. He must not put oil or incense on it, because it is a sin offering. He is to bring it to the priest, who shall take a handful of it as a memorial portion and burn it on the altar on top of the offerings made to the Eternal by fire. It is a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for him for any of these sins he has committed, and he will be forgiven. The rest of the offering will belong to the priest, as in the case of the grain offering. [Leviticus 5:11-13]
So here, right in the midst of the commandments concerning the sacrifices for sin, the Bible tells us we do not need any blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin. This proves that the idea that one needs a blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin is an UnBiblical idea.
Remember, too, the story of the book of Jonah. Jonah tried to escape from doing God's will, and preaching to the People of Ninevah. After the problem with the great fish, he goes to the people of Ninevah, says five words to them (in the original Hebrew) and what do they do? They fast ("let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste anything. Let them not feed or drink water" Jonah 3:7) just as the Jews do on Yom Kippur. The people of Ninevah also prayed ("Let them cry mightily to God." Jonah 3:8) just as the Jews do on Yom Kippur. And, finally, the people of Ninevah stopped doing Evil, started doing Good ("Let everyone turn from his evil ways and from the violence which is in his hands." Jonah 3:8) as we are, hopefully, inspired to do on Yom Kippur. What was God's response? God forgave them of their sins because of their works ("When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God repented of the Evil which He had said He would do unto them, and He did not do it." Jonah 3:10) Please note that the text does NOT read that God saw their sacrifices, the People of Ninevah were never commanded to sacrifice. Nor does the text read that God saw that they had the right faith. Rather it says that God saw what they did, their works.
We have proof of other non-blood sacrifices:

So Aaron did as Moses said, and ran into the midst of the assembly. The plague had already started among the people, but Aaron offered the incense and made atonement for them. [Numbers 16:47]

And in the following verse we see jewelry offered for atonement, but no blood is shed.

So we have brought as an offering to the Eternal the gold articles each of us acquired-- armlets, bracelets, signet rings, earrings and necklaces-- to make atonement for ourselves before the Eternal. [Numbers 31:50]

So it is obvious, that a blood sacrifice is not needed! Another example is that Isaiah had his sin removed by a live coal:

Then one of the seraphs flew to me with a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with tongs from the altar. With it he touched my mouth and said, "See, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for. [Isaiah 6:6-7]

But many will say, that without a Temple, we cannot offer any kind of blood sacrifice. This is true. That is why God gave many different methods of atonement to the Jews. There was a time in Israel's history when they became all too consumed with the sacrificial ceremonies. For this, God rebuked them. God reminded them that the Laws of God were more important than the sacrifices.

For when I brought your forefathers out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not just give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices, but I gave them this command: Obey me, and I will be your God and you will be my people. Walk in all the ways I command you, that it may go well with you. [Jeremiah 7:22-23]

Out of all the methods God gave to us for atonement, the sacrifices were the weakest. This is true, because sacrifices only made atonement for one kind of sin. Many may point out several verses that show that there needs to be a sacrifice for sins. They often point out these verses that show that sacrifice does atone for sin. But they seem to leave out just what sins are covered by these sacrifices, and that is, UNintentional sins, and only UNintentional sins:

The Eternal said to Moses, "Say to the Israelites: `When anyone sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the Eternal's commands--" [Leviticus 4:1-2]
If the whole Israelite community sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the Eternal's commands, even though the community is unaware of the matter, they are guilty. [Leviticus 4:13]
When a leader sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the commands of the Eternal his God, he is guilty. [Leviticus 4:22]
If a member of the community sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the Eternal's commands, he is guilty. [Leviticus 4:27]
When a person commits a violation and sins unintentionally in regard to any of the Eternal's holy things, he is to bring to the Eternal as a penalty a ram from the flock, one without defect and of the proper value in silver, according to the sanctuary shekel. It is a guilt offering. [Leviticus 5:15]
He is to bring to the priest as a guilt offering a ram from the flock, one without defect and of the proper value. In this way the priest will make atonement for him for the wrong he has committed unintentionally, and he will be forgiven. [Leviticus 5:18]
Now if you unintentionally fail to keep any of these commands the Eternal gave Moses-- " [Numbers 15:22]

...and if this is done unintentionally without the community being aware of it, then the whole community is to offer a young bull for a burnt offering as an aroma pleasing to the Eternal, along with its prescribed grain offering and drink offering, and a male goat for a sin offering." The priest is to make atonement for the whole Israelite community, and they will be forgiven, for it was not intentional and they have brought to the Eternal for their wrong an offering made by fire and a sin offering. The whole Israelite community and the aliens living among them will be forgiven, because all the people were involved in the unintentional wrong. "`But if just one person sins unintentionally, he must bring a year-old female goat for a sin offering. The priest is to make atonement before the Eternal for the one who erred by sinning unintentionally, and when atonement has been made for him, he will be forgiven. One and the same law applies to everyone who sins unintentionally, whether he is a native-born Israelite or an alien. [Numbers 15:24-29]
But if someone were to commit a sin intentionally, he would be punished!

But anyone who sins defiantly, whether native-born or alien, blasphemes the Eternal, and that person must be cut off from his people. [ Numbers 15:30]

For some intentional sins, the punishment was severe:

While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. Then the Eternal said to Moses, "The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp." So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the Eternal commanded Moses. [Numbers 15:32-36]

God is a righteous judge. For intentional sins to be atoned for, there had to be repentance and restitution and often punishment because the sins were committed on purpose!

A thief must certainly make restitution, but if he has nothing, he must be sold to pay for his theft... If a man grazes his livestock in a field or vineyard and lets them stray and they graze in another man's field, he must make restitution from the best of his own field or vineyard... If a fire breaks out and spreads into thornbushes so that it burns shocks of grain or standing grain or the whole field, the one who started the fire must make restitution... But if the animal was stolen from the neighbor, he must make restitution to the owner... If a man borrows an animal from his neighbor and it is injured or dies while the owner is not present, he must make restitution. [Exodus 22:3, 5, 6, 12, and 14]
Whoever kills an animal must make restitution, but whoever kills a man must be put to death. [Leviticus 24:21]
Say to the Israelites: `When a man or woman wrongs another in any way and so is unfaithful to the Eternal, that person is guilty and must confess the sin he has committed. He must make full restitution for his wrong, add one fifth to it and give it all to the person he has wronged. [Numbers 5:6-7]

It would be nice to live in a society where, if a criminal stole and stripped your car, he would have to replace it, and then give you 20% in addition to what it was worth.
There were other methods used to receive atonement that were superior to the sacrificial system. This is what God truly desires from us, Teshuvah, which means repentance and return to God.

..if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land. [2 Chronicles 7:14]
But if from there you seek the Eternal your God, you will find him if you look for him with all your heart and with all your soul. [Deuteronomy 4:29]
He prays to God and finds favor with him, he sees God's face and shouts for joy; he is restored by God to his righteous state. [Job 33:26]
Turn from evil and do good; seek peace and pursue it. [Psalm 34:14]
The Eternal is close to the brokenhearted and saves those who are crushed in spirit. [Psalm 34:18]

It is true repentance and prayer that God wants from us, NOT sacrifice!

You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise. [Psalm 51:16-17]

Remember, the Psalms were written to sing praises to God in the Temple, right where the sacrifices themselves were to be performed. They understood quite well God's attitude towards the sacrifices:

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]

God wants us to pray for forgiveness, and it is prayer that replaces the sacrifices, just as God commanded us to do as Hosea stated:

Take words with you and return to the Eternal. Say to him: "Forgive all our sins and receive us graciously, that we may offer the bulls of our lips. [Hosea 14:2]

(Please note that many Christian translations intentionally mistranslate this passage. The Hebrew is quite clear, "Pa-reem S'fa-tay-nu, the bulls of our lips." Instead they mistranslate the Hebrew as if it said, "Pay-rote S'fa-tay-nu, the fruit of our lips." This means that for the specific purpose of misrepresenting what the Bible says, that God accepts prayer in place of sacrifices, they change the word of God!)

He who conceals his sins does not prosper, but whoever confesses and renounces them finds mercy. [Proverbs 28:13]

Another superior method is charity:

Through love and faithfulness sin is atoned for; through the fear of the Eternal a man avoids evil. [Proverbs 16:6]
To do what is right and just is more acceptable to the Eternal than sacrifice. [Proverbs 21:3]
For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings. [Hosea 6:6]

Please note: The following quotations all come from I Kings 8, in which King Solomon dedicates the only Temple in the world to the One True God. It was in this very Temple that the sacrifices were to take place. Yet at the dedication of this very Temple, Solomon states that one need only pray to God for forgiveness, after repenting, and God would forgive:

...and when a prayer or plea is made by any of your people Israel-- each one aware of the afflictions of his own heart, and spreading out his hands toward this temple--then hear from heaven, your dwelling place. Forgive and act; deal with each man according to all he does, since you know his heart (for you alone know the hearts of all men)... [I Kings 8:38-39]

The Gentiles too, were to pray directly to God for the forgiveness of their sins, and without the need of a sacrifice!

As for the foreigner who does not belong to your people Israel but has come from a distant land because of your name -- for men will hear of your great name and your mighty hand and your outstretched arm -- when he comes and prays toward this temple, then hear from heaven, your dwelling place, and do whatever the foreigner asks of you, so that all the peoples of the earth may know your name and fear you, as do your own people Israel and may know that this house I have built bears your Name. [I Kings 8:41-43]

Notice here, that God allowed the Gentiles to pray directly to him, without the need of a mediator. God never did exclude anyone from Him. All God asks for is a contrite heart, and the willingness to follow God!
Remember, still, that the whole of the sacrificial system was centered at the Temple. Solomon continues:

When they sin against you -- for there is no one who does not sin--and you become angry with them and give them over to the enemy, who takes them captive to his own land, far away or near; and if they have a change of heart in the land where they are held captive, and repent and plead with you in the land of their conquerors and say, `We have sinned, we have done wrong, we have acted wickedly'; and if they turn back to you with all their heart and soul in the land of their enemies who took them captive, and pray to you toward the land you gave their fathers, toward the city you have chosen and the temple I have built for your Name; then from heaven, your dwelling place, hear their prayer and their plea, and uphold their cause. And forgive your people, who have sinned against you; forgive all the offenses they have committed against you, and cause their conquerorsto show them mercy. [I Kings 8:46-50]

So if you repent, God will save you!

The Eternal is close to the brokenhearted and saves those who are crushed in spirit. [Psalm 34:18]

And he will restore your righteousness! Even though you sinned!

He prays to God and finds favor with him, he sees God's face and shouts for joy; he is restored by God to his righteous state. [Job 33:26]

God has clearly shown us that sacrifice is NOT necessary for atonement. God has made it abundantly clear to Israel what we are to do for atonement:

With what shall I come before the Eternal and bow down before the exalted God? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? Will the Eternal be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the Eternal require of you? Only to do Justice, and to love Mercy and to walk humbly with your God. [Micah 6:6-8]

[Hamza Asadullah]

Not only that, the verse that he quoted, Matthew 16:28, actually is not what he posted above.

It is not surprising at all he is making himself like SO FOOLISH for all to see. He has done Christianity a true disservice with his constant deception

[Ramadhan]

Lesson learned: when solinvectus give you scriptural verses, better check if he is actually making up verses as he goes along.

[Sol Invictus]

The God-man relationship was never limited to the animal sacrifices, nor was it ever the only means by which a human being obtained forgiveness from God for sin.

once again you fall into the same trap as before hamza. go back and quote my words where i claimed that blood atonement was the only means of coming to forgiveness. i'm pretty sure i refuted the above when i said the following:

The bible describes sin as a debt whose method of payment and price is death (Romans 6:23, Hebrews 9:22) and God, since he is infinitely holy and just, requires that sin be punished; that all debts be paid. Now the nature of a debt is as such that he who has no debt can pay the debt of another. This is because a debt (in a manner of speaking) is extraneous to the individual and hence the individual is not levied for something that is absolutely inherent to his self but rather he is levied for a property that is wholly contingent to his being. [...] Therefore, given that sin is an extrinsic quality, it is possible and perfectly logical for a third party to pay the debt of sin belonging to another. Hence the feasibility of animal sacrifices in the Old Testament (Leviticus 5:11, Leviticus 17:11).

you'll find that i chose my words very carefully (which i suppose is why you had to make up a false quote). the only method of paying for sin is death (and please do not even say forgiveness because forgiveness is not paying for your sin. payment is justice, forgiveness is mercy--let us not confuse the two). because sin is paid through death, this then allows for the animal sacrifices in the old testament (which once again your source actually agrees with). you had claimed that atonement by blood was not taught in the bible and yet both myself and your source have proven you wrong.

the reason why your post failed so spectacularly hamza is because your source was responding to a somewhat similar enough argument as mine so that you, who evidently never understood the argument in the first place, could make the mistake that he was actually refuting my position when actually my argument was different enough so that the above could not apply. this once again highlights how you have not been able to grasp my argument nor even the argument that your very own source was making (for your benefit, your source is trying to show that god has forgiven without the shedding of blood and not that payment of sin can be had without death. this of course leads us to the conundrum between justice vs. mercy and i'm sure we would love for you to give us how the muslim deity harmonizes these two. for somewhere along the line, a just god must enact justice and forgiveness is not justice but rather mercy) for they aren't arguing that biblical judaism didn't teach blood atonement. anyway, you and your co-religionists are more than welcome to try to think up an answer to my question but the matter of whether blood atonement is taught in scripture is already settled.

though i do not believe that you had directed this objection at me, i must say that it's somewhat nonsensical to tell us that you don't believe the words of paul (nevermind the fact that you have been repeatedly using him when trying to prove your points---contradiction much?) when everyone here admits that the words of paul form part of christianity and this thread is trying to show a supposed flaw with a christian doctrine. given the above, the christian is certainly allowed to use the new testament in this discussion because it concerns christianity. in a similar vein, i distinctly remember saying the following:

hamza one must really wonder, what have you proved. if you claim that the above actually refutes my words. explain it. please begin to quote my words and line them up against the article that you copied and pasted. this should be simple enough, right?

[Hamza Asadullah]

Not only has his assertion that blood atonement is taught in the Hebrew bible been THOROUGHLY refuted and therefore rejected but he has consistently been UNABLE to provide a shred of evidence of the teachings of the blood atonement of ANY Prophet, Jesus or God.

Now out of his desperation he is trying to clutch at straws and trying to imply that verses say that which they CLEARLY DO NOT and just now he has been exposed for blatantly misquoting verses from the Bible. A true deceiver has been exposed for all to see.

[Hamza Asadullah]

once again you fall into the same trap as before hamza. go back and quote my words where i claimed that blood atonement was the only means of coming to forgiveness. i'm pretty sure i refuted the above when i said the following:

Oh so because your argument about the atonement of blood has consistently failed you are now trying to sneakily move away from relying on it.

How low will you sink Sol? Is it not enough that you have already exposed your lies and deception?

[Sol Invictus]

Not only has his assertion that blood atonement is taught in the Hebrew bible been THOROUGHLY refuted and therefore rejected but he has consistently been UNABLE to provide a shred of evidence of the teachings of the blood atonement of ANY Prophet, Jesus or God.

hamza, the very source you quote once again says that blood atonement is taught! how can you now say that it isn't?

[Ramadhan]

Human sacrifices are explicitly banned:

Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou inquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. Thou shalt not do so unto the Eternal thy God: for every abomination to the Eternal, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods. [Deuteronomy 12:30-31]

Because they have forsaken me, and have estranged this place, and have burned incense in it unto other gods, whom neither they nor their fathers have known, nor the kings of Judah, and have filled this place with the blood of innocents; They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind: Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the Eternal, that this place shall no more be called Tophet, nor The Valley of the Son of Hinnom, but The Valley of Slaughter. [Jeremiah 19:4-6]

Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils, And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood. And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood. [Psalm 106:37-38]

Moreover thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters, whom thou hast borne unto me, and these hast thou sacrificed unto them to be devoured. Is this of thy *****doms a small matter? [Ezekiel 16:20]

[Sol Invictus]

Oh so because your argument about the atonement of blood has consistently failed you are now trying to sneakily move away from relying on it.

How low will you sink Sol? Is it not enough that you have already exposed your lies and deception?

the matter is quite simple, if you believe that you actually refuted my words, simply quote for us this post. why can you not line up my words against the articles that you copy and paste?

[Ramadhan]

hamza, the very source you quote once again says that blood atonement is taught! how can you now say that it isn't?

Show us where human blood atonement is taught, solinvectus.

If it is taught, then give us the verses of human blood atonement

[Ramadhan]

the matter is quite simple, if you believe that you actually refuted my words, simply quote for us this post. why can you not line up my words against the articles that you copy and paste?

are talking to yourself in the mirror, sol?

and where did you copy paste the false matthew 16:28 from?

[Hamza Asadullah]

the matter is quite simple, if you believe that you actually refuted my words, simply quote for us this post. why can you not line up my words against the articles that you copy and paste?

The matter is quite simple, go back and read every post of mine in this thread and EVERY single one has refuted everyone of your failed arguments. I do not need to waste my time quoting your posts when anyone can just read both of our posts alongside one another and compare them.

I ask anyone to read my posts and that of Sol and you will see that Sol has consistantly failed in EVERY assertion and argument that he has tried to decievingly prove. He has even sink so as low as to misquote verses from the Bible just to try and prove his failed position but instead has only exposed himself as a cunning liar and deciever.

[Hamza Asadullah]

hamza, the very source you quote once again says that blood atonement is taught! how can you now say that it isn't?

YES BY PAUL! We all acknowledge that NOT ANY PROPHET JESUS OR GOD!

But what the source did do is refute your failed argument that the blood atonement is taught in the Hebrew Bible. What will you do next Sol your stuck now

[Ramadhan]

I'm sure sol is checking what mistake he made.

He surely doesnt know his bible, while I knew right away what mistake he made.

[Hamza Asadullah]

My Source also states this:

And the reason why they had no such fear, was that the Bible makes it explicitly clear that no blood sacrifice is necessary for the forgiveness of sins, or that the exclusive means for the God-man relationship was through the animal sacrifices.

Those who believe that one must have a blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins look to Leviticus 17:11, which reads:

For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life." [Leviticus 17:11]

But if you read the whole context of this verse, you will find that it is in reference to abstaining from eating the blood of a sacrifice, and nothing more. God commanded the abstaining from eating or drinking blood because most other pagan religions ate the blood of their sacrifices as a way to incorporate their gods into their bodies and into their lives.

But the Holiness of the People of Israel requires them to not practice the pagan ways and not to hold the same beliefs of their pagan neighbors.

The whole quotation from Leviticus 17 reads:

Any Israelite or any alien living among them who eats any blood-- I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people. For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life. Therefore I say to the Israelites, `None of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood. Any Israelite or any alien living among you who hunts any animal or bird that may be eaten must drain out the blood and cover it with earth, because the life of every creature is its blood.' That is why I have said to the Israelites, `You must not eat the blood of any creature, because the life of every creature is its blood; anyone who eats it must be cut off.'"

[Hamza Asadullah]

I'm sure sol is checking what mistake he made.

He surely doesnt know his bible, while I knew right away what mistake he made.

Very well spotted brother. Who knows how many other deceptions he has got away with. This has totally destroyed his credibility here as all can see.

He also tried to assert what the Jewish belief is when it is very much against the pagan practises brought into Christianity by Paul. How low will he go next? That remains to be seen....

[Sol Invictus]

The matter is quite simple, go back and read every post of mine in this thread and EVERY single one has refuted everyone of your failed arguments. I do not need to waste my time quoting your posts when anyone can just read both of our posts alongside one another and compare them.

I ask anyone to read my posts and that of Sol and you will see that Sol has consistantly failed in EVERY assertion and argument that he has tried to decievingly prove. He has even sink so as low as to misquote verses from the Bible just to try and prove his failed position but instead has only exposed himself as a cunning liar and deciever.

the difference here is that i have in fact read every one of your posts and responded to each point until you began merely copying and pasting entire articles. while we both could indeed engage in the same sort, i'd rather not. furthermore, every jewish source you have since quoted has said that blood atonement is taught. once again you get into the same problem that i initially highlighted of having your own sources contradict you. furthermore, you have consistently avoided actually dealing with my points. can you go back and quote for us which statements of mine that your above article actually refutes? this should be simple enough, right?

He has even sink so as low as to misquote verses from the Bible just to try and prove his failed position but instead has only exposed himself as a cunning liar and deciever.

i don't know what child would take the above seriously. for one thing it is a mis-citation and not a misquotation. the only person who has shown themselves to have been a liar in this discussion has been you. it is in fact quite strange that you had misattributed the words of jeremiah 7:22-23 to isaiah 7:22-23 and now would accuse me of being a liar for committing a similar error. hamza, when someone begins to blow such a simple mistake over proprortion, it is quite evident that they are actually the one who is lying.

[Ramadhan]

Quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus View Post the very post you have cited contains explicit words by previous prophets and yet you refuse to believe this.

Please make the part bold and you can enlarge the size to size 10 if you want. Where were the prophets say that human sacrifices were the method of payment of sins? Show us, solinvectus. Sol, this is what Jesus said:

I am still waiting for this, solinvectus.

Wheres that verses by prophets that taught human blood atonement to pay for the sins.

[Hamza Asadullah]

the difference here is that i have in fact read every one of your posts and responded to each point until you began merely copying and pasting entire articles. while we both could indeed engage in the same sort, i'd rather not. furthermore, every jewish source you have since quoted has said that blood atonement is taught. once again you get into the same problem that i initially highlighted of having your own sources contradict you. furthermore, you have consistently avoided actually dealing with my points. can you go back and quote for us which statements of mine that your above article actually refutes? this should be simple enough, right?


i don't know what child would take the above seriously. for one thing it is a mis-citation and not a misquotation. the only person who has shown themselves to have been a liar in this discussion has been you. it is in fact quite strange that you had misattributed the words of jeremiah 7:22-23 to isaiah 7:22-23 and now would accuse me of being a liar for committing a similar error. hamza, when someone begins to blow such a simple mistake over proprortion, it is quite evident that they are actually the one who is lying.

Anyone reading my posts in this thread will know that EVERY point of yours has been THOROUGHLY refuted and whenever you are given a direct question you AVOID it like anything. I am still waiting for many of my questions to be answered but you REFUSE to answer them!

It is clear Sol that the proof of your lies and deception are evident across this thread as well as all others you have participated in. It will simply take one to go through your posts to realise this fact for themselves.

[Sol Invictus]

Wheres that verses by prophets that taught human blood atonement to pay for the sins.

no one's life but that of the messiah. did you not read the words of the jewish rabbis? are these then liars as well?

[Ramadhan]

i don't know what child would take the above seriously. for one thing it is a mis-citation and not a misquotation. the only person who has shown themselves to have been a liar in this discussion has been you. it is in fact quite strange that you had misattributed the words of jeremiah 7:22-23 to isaiah 7:22-23 and now would accuse me of being a liar for committing a similar error. hamza, when someone begins to blow such a simple mistake over proprortion, it is quite evident that they are actually the one who is lying.

Wheres the verses by prophets that taught blood atonement solinvectus?

Here's the verses that BANNED the practice:

Human blood for atonement are explicitly banned:

Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou inquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. Thou shalt not do so unto the Eternal thy God: for every abomination to the Eternal, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods. [Deuteronomy 12:30-31]

Because they have forsaken me, and have estranged this place, and have burned incense in it unto other gods, whom neither they nor their fathers have known, nor the kings of Judah, and have filled this place with the blood of innocents; They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind: Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the Eternal, that this place shall no more be called Tophet, nor The Valley of the Son of Hinnom, but The Valley of Slaughter. [Jeremiah 19:4-6]

Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils, And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood. And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood. [Psalm 106:37-38]

Moreover thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters, whom thou hast borne unto me, and these hast thou sacrificed unto them to be devoured. Is this of thy W-h-oredoms a small matter? [Ezekiel 16:20]

[Ramadhan]

no one's life but that of the messiah. did you not read the words of the jewish rabbis? are these then liars as well?

Please give us the verses from previous prophets or god where human blood is required to pay for the sins, sol

[Hamza Asadullah]

Let us see what else my source states:

Bible tells us we do not need any blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin. This proves that the idea that one needs a blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin is an UnBiblical idea.

The Rabbi has thoroughly refuted your deceitful claims.

[Ramadhan]

Br. Hamza, I think I agree with you. Debtaing with sol you must not lose focus, and keep asking him for proof and evidence, because he seems to be trying to divert by throwing in smoke and mirror and clutching at strwmen such as "are you saying the jewish rabbis were liar"?

[Sol Invictus]

Anyone reading my posts in this thread will know that EVERY point of yours has been THOROUGHLY refuted and whenever you are given a direct question you AVOID it like anything. I am still waiting for many of my questions to be answered but you REFUSE to answer them!

i had already called you out on the matter that none of your posts actually dealt with my claim. all your articles agreed that blood atonement was taught in the bible and that blood atonement did remove sin. what they were responding to was that blood atonement was not the only means of removing sin. but this is what i had actually said:

you'll find that i chose my words very carefully (which i suppose is why you had to make up a false quote). the only method of paying for sin is death (and please do not even say forgiveness because forgiveness is not paying for your sin. payment is justice, forgiveness is mercy--let us not confuse the two). because sin is paid through death, this then allows for the animal sacrifices in the old testament (which once again your source actually agrees with). you had claimed that atonement by blood was not taught in the bible and yet both myself and your source have proven you wrong.

the reason why your post failed so spectacularly hamza is because your source was responding to a somewhat similar enough argument as mine so that you, who evidently never understood the argument in the first place, could make the mistake that he was actually refuting my position when actually my argument was different enough so that the above could not apply. this once again highlights how you have not been able to grasp my argument nor even the argument that your very own source was making (for your benefit, your source is trying to show that god has forgiven without the shedding of blood and not that payment of sin can be had without death. this of course leads us to the conundrum between justice vs. mercy and i'm sure we would love for you to give us how the muslim deity harmonizes these two. for somewhere along the line, a just god must enact justice and forgiveness is not justice but rather mercy) for they aren't arguing that biblical judaism didn't teach blood atonement. anyway, you and your co-religionists are more than welcome to try to think up an answer to my question but the matter of whether blood atonement is taught in scripture is already settled.

the problem here is that you cannot actually show how my words were wrong. we will make this extremely easy because i certainly can't continue a discussion that keeps going in circles like this: is the above true or false? if not, can you please explain to us why this is not the case?

[Sol Invictus]

Let us see what else my source states:

Bible tells us we do not need any blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin. This proves that the idea that one needs a blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin is an UnBiblical idea.

The Rabbi has thoroughly refuted your deceitful claims.

The God-man relationship was never limited to the animal sacrifices, nor was it ever the only means by which a human being obtained forgiveness from God for sin.

does the above say that blood atonement did not forgive sins or not?

[Ramadhan]

Sol, I am still waiting for those verses where jesus, prophets or god said that human blood must be spilt for atonement

[Hamza Asadullah]

i had already called you out on the matter that none of your posts actually dealt with my claim. all your articles agreed that blood atonement was taught in the bible and that blood atonement did remove sin. what they were responding to was that blood atonement was not the only means of removing sin. but this is what i had actually said:

Sol throughout this thread the crux of our discussion was the following:

Provide proof and evidence from the EXPLICIT words and teachings of ANY Prophet, God or Jesus of the teaching of the blood atonement of Christ.

This is a question that you have CONSTANTLY avoided to such an extent that you avoid it like anything. You have tried to provide vague verses that speak NOTHING of such a teaching and have consistantly failed to prove your position.

We are still waiting for you to prove your position using EXPLICIT words and teachings of ANY Prophet, God or Jesus of the teaching of the blood atonement of Christ.

the problem here is that you cannot actually show how my words were wrong. we will make this extremely easy because i certainly can't continue a discussion that keeps going in circles like this: is the above true or false? if not, can you please explain to us why this is not the case?

Your position was that you asserted that the Hebrew Bible taught that blood is necessery for the atonement of sin and i used two sources to refute your false argument from the Jewish perspective:

Source 1

No where in the Hebrew Bible does it say blood is the ONLY way to make atonement for our sins. In fact there are several verses that prove otherwise. Also, no where in the Hebrew Bible does it say a person can die for someone elses sins, in fact it says the exact opposite.

All throughout the book of Ezekiel we are taught how to return to God by giving up our evil ways and he will forgive us. Did any of these verses say blood is needed to make atonement? No, the claim that blood is the ONLY way to make atonement for our sins is a man made ideology, for clearly the Hebrew Bible tells us otherwise.

When people tell me that Jesus is the ONLY way to make atonement for our sins then they should know that the Hebrew bible tells me otherwise.

Source 2

"The Bible makes it explicitly clear that no blood sacrifice is necessary for the forgiveness of sins."

"Bible tells us we do not need any blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin. This proves that the idea that one needs a blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin is an UnBiblical idea."


So both sources are in agreement using vast evidences that the blood atonement of sin being necessery is NOT taught in the Hebrew Bible therefore once again your position has been thoroughly refuted.

[Hamza Asadullah]

does the above say that blood atonement did not forgive sins or not?

The Rabbi Stuart Federow answers your question regarding this verse:

"Read the whole context of this verse, you will find that it is in reference to abstaining from eating the blood of a sacrifice, and nothing more. God commanded the abstaining from eating or drinking blood because most other pagan religions ate the blood of their sacrifices as a way to incorporate their gods into their bodies and into their lives.

But the Holiness of the People of Israel requires them to not practice the pagan ways and not to hold the same beliefs of their pagan neighbors.

The whole quotation from Leviticus 17 reads:

Any Israelite or any alien living among them who eats any blood-- I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people. For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life. Therefore I say to the Israelites, `None of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood. Any Israelite or any alien living among you who hunts any animal or bird that may be eaten must drain out the blood and cover it with earth, because the life of every creature is its blood.' That is why I have said to the Israelites, `You must not eat the blood of any creature, because the life of every creature is its blood; anyone who eats it must be cut off.'"

[Hamza Asadullah]

Sol, I am still waiting for those verses where jesus, prophets or god said that human blood must be spilt for atonement

Yes Sol ANSWER DIRECT QUESTIONS. Do NOT avoid them like you keep doing.

You are VERY good at diverting the topic whenever you cannot answer a direct question. Firstly our discussion was regarding the blood atonement of Christ and the fact that it is NOT taught anywhere in the teachings or Words of ANY prophet, Jesus or God.

Then because you could not provide such proof or evidence you then diverted the topic to that of animal sacrifices which were practiced in the temple of Soloman. What does that have to do with the blood atonement of Christ? Why divert a topic away from tha ACTUAL discussion?

Answer the original question and give us proof in the explicit words or teachings of ANY Prophet, Jesus or God of the blood of Christ being the atonement of sin.

You also have to answer the question regarding unborn babies and babys and children who die before being baptised. Your Christian friend Gmcbroom stated that they may well go to Hell FOREVER.

Tell us whether you agree with him or not?

[Hamza Asadullah]

This is very interesting and relevant to the discussion:

In Christianity the doctrine of atonement is very diverse unlike the doctrines of Trinity and Incarnation that were precisely defined and agreed upon by the early ecumenical councils. Historically, it was not formulated with that same level of precision, thus having many differing theories, depending on which aspect of the work of Christ is emphasized. There exist four major theories: 1) ransom theory, 2) satisfaction theory, 3) moral influence theory, and 4) penal substitution theory.

Today, an increasing number of Christian theologians argue that none of the existing theories by itself makes sense fully, and that a new approach comprehensive enough to incorporate all the existing theories is needed to understand the whole picture of Christ's atoning work. Interestingly, this new approach tends to argue that Christ's sacrificial death was not absolutely necessary, making Christianity more compatible with other religions at least on two issues: whether or not the priest himself should die; and, more generally, whether or not the way of expiation should involve anyone's death.

So which theory do you follow Sol? Which theory does Grace Seeker follow?

NOTE the word "Theory" because the blood atonement of Christ it is just that - Confusing and does NOT make any sense.

Here we have a fundamental concept of Christianity which is NOT even properly defined as yet and as such Christian scholars agree that this theory is confusing and does not quite make sense.

Obviously this is because is has NO basis in the scriptures or in any of the teachings or words of any Prophet, Jesus or God so it is left for any theorist to edit and change it to make it seem attractive but no matter how one changes such a concept it will NEVER take away the fact that it is NOT taught by ANY Prophet, By Jesus or God and that it is truly disturbing and troubling.

[Grace Seeker]

Peace Gene,

I don't want to sidetrack the thread. but just want to point out that Anselm made much more sense than the older belief that God(swt) paid Satan the Ransom of blood atonement through Jesus(as) so that Satan would turn mankind free. (My short condensed version)

I think that fairly well ended the idea of Blood atonement, although that concept seems to have now returned among some Denominations.I don't believe in either, but Anselm made a lot more sense then the old Catholic teaching of the blood Atonement theory.

Very interesting to hear your view on that, because Anselm wrote his theory specifically in answer to question posed by Islam's request for a more logical presentation. I myself value much of what Anselm did and agree it is better than the Ransom Theory, but I'm personally inclined to go back to even before the Ransom Theory to the Christus Victor understanding of the atonement.


One of the things that needs to be understood by all is that none of these theories are actually describing what it was that God had to have done. They are describing ways that we might understand what it was that God was doing and how it worked. But they begin with the Biblical proclaimation that God did indeed do something in Christ that resulted in our atonement. Why and how and for whom are questions that theologians have then tried to piece answers together for from the scriptures and their understanding of the logical implications of the biblical text. They of course can be wrong in their surmising, but that God still did bring about atonement for our sins through Jesus' work on the cross is still proclaimed by the scriptures and we can't change that even if we don't like the theologies that others present to explain it.

[gmcbroom]

Hamza81,
If I may say something. The 3 faiths that claim to be Abrahamic religions are Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. To muslims, Judaism, did not practice a blood sacrifice. It may not have been spelled out to word for word exactly as Islam is in the Koranic Hadiths, but that is the muslim understanding and that is final. Muslims, aren't given an option on it, it's believe it or die.

Having said that Christianity takes a different view. Christians see it in the Old Testament so they can see the parallels in Jesus's life, death, and yes to Christians (resurrection). Jesus had a message that was hard to hear and many rejected it then as they do now. What can Christians do about it? Simple. We simply explain why we believe as we do. If the message is accepted then christianity grows and the message is spread. If it is rejected, then christians pray for their conversion, and that is that. Christianity continues the sacrifice that Rabbinic Judaism cannot. The only difference is that Jesus died only once but it was for all time. He was the perfect sacrifice that enabled us to reach God the Father again. When the Divine Liturgy is offered throughout the world, that is the Thanksgiving sacrifice that we were to continue.

Now, It should be noted that the Judaism of today isn't exactly the same Judaism of the Old Testament. The Judaism of today is actually called Rabbinic Judaism. Old Judaism was centered around the Temple and it was there that the sacrifice was made. The Temple was so essential that when the High Priest went into the Holy of Holies he always had a rope tied around one of his feet so incase he was struck down by God the priests could safely remove his body. The Temple was that important. Now, when the Temple was destroyed all sacrifices ceased in Judaism for there was no way for them to continue the thanksgiving sacrifice. Rabbinic Judaism, is the result of the faithful striving to live in a world without Temple worship.

Now I'm curious, if Islam doesn't have the thanksgiving sacrifice how can you say your an Abrahamic faith? What ties you to the faith of Abraham?

Peace be with you

[Hamza Asadullah]

Hamza81,
If I may say something. The 3 faiths that claim to be Abrahamic religions are Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. To muslims, Judaism, did not practice a blood sacrifice. It may not have been spelled out to word for word exactly as Islam is in the Koranic Hadiths, but that is the muslim understanding and that is final. Muslims, aren't given an option on it, it's believe it or die.

Having said that Christianity takes a different view. Christians see it in the Old Testament so they can see the parallels in Jesus's life, death, and yes to Christians (resurrection). Jesus had a message that was hard to hear and many rejected it then as they do now. What can Christians do about it? Simple. We simply explain why we believe as we do. If the message is accepted then christianity grows and the message is spread. If it is rejected, then christians pray for their conversion, and that is that. Christianity continues the sacrifice that Rabbinic Judaism cannot. The only difference is that Jesus died only once but it was for all time. He was the perfect sacrifice that enabled us to reach God the Father again. When the Divine Liturgy is offered throughout the world, that is the Thanksgiving sacrifice that we were to continue.

Now, It should be noted that the Judaism of today isn't exactly the same Judaism of the Old Testament. The Judaism of today is actually called Rabbinic Judaism. Old Judaism was centered around the Temple and it was there that the sacrifice was made. The Temple was so essential that when the High Priest went into the Holy of Holies he always had a rope tied around one of his feet so incase he was struck down by God the priests could safely remove his body. The Temple was that important. Now, when the Temple was destroyed all sacrifices ceased in Judaism for there was no way for them to continue the thanksgiving sacrifice. Rabbinic Judaism, is the result of the faithful striving to live in a world without Temple worship.

Now I'm curious, if Islam doesn't have the thanksgiving sacrifice how can you say your an Abrahamic faith? What ties you to the faith of Abraham?

Peace be with you

Greetings Gmcbroom,

The point here is that the discussion between me and Sol was centered around the fact that there is NO such teaching of the blood atonement of CHRIST in ANY word or teaching of ANY Prophet, Jesus or God. Then because Sol was unable to provide an evidence of this teaching he diverted the topic away from the blood atonement of Christ and instead onto animal sacrifices which have NOTHING to do with the blood atonement of Christ.

The previous Jewish animal sacrifice which could ONLY take place in the temple of Soloman which is as you have stated was called the Qorbanot.

As Muslims we also have a thanksgiving sacrifice which commemorates the unparalleled sacrifice offered by the Prophet Ibrahim peace and blessings be upon him. When he, in pursuance to a command of Allah Ta'ala conveyed to him in a dream, prepared himself to slaughter his beloved son Ismail peace and blessings be upon him and actually did so, but Allah Almighty after testing him of his submission, sent down a ram and saved his son from the logical fate of slaughter.

It is from that time onwards that the sacrifice of an animal became an obligatory duty to be performed by every well to do Muslim. Concerning this incident the Glorious Quran says:

"And when he attained the age of running with him (Ibrahim peace and blessings be upon him), he said: "O my son verily I have seen in a dream that I am slaughtering thee, so look, considerest thou?" He said: "O my father! Do that which thou art commanded, thou shalt find me, Allah willing, of the patients."

"Then when the two submitted themselves and had prostrated him on his temple."

"We cried unto him: "O Ibrahim! Of a surety thou hast fulfilled the vision. Verily We! That was a trial manifest. And We ransomed him with a mighty victim. And We left for him among the posterity. Peace be unto Ibrahim. Verily We! Thus we compense the well doers. Verily he was one of Our believing bondsmen." (37:102-111)

Here is information on the Qurbani for you to look it up for yourself:

The Fiqh of Ritual Slaughter (Udhiya/Qurbani)

http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.a...D=656&CATE=115

[Ramadhan]

but that God still did bring about atonement for our sins through Jesus' work on the cross is still proclaimed by the scriptures and we can't change that even if we don't like the theologies that others present to explain it.

technically, you are right. saul proclaimed that in romans.
But if the scriptures is only limited to the words of jesus, prophets (pbut), and god, then there's no foundation and support for jesus spilling blood on the cross to atone the sins.

So it's truly the words of saul, who was enemy of jesus and never met jesus, versus the words of Jesus, prophets (pbut) and god.

And we just have to accept that christians rather follow saul.

[Ramadhan]

Now, It should be noted that the Judaism of today isn't exactly the same Judaism of the Old Testament. The Judaism of today is actually called Rabbinic Judaism. Old Judaism was centered around the Temple and it was there that the sacrifice was made. The Temple was so essential that when the High Priest went into the Holy of Holies he always had a rope tied around one of his feet so incase he was struck down by God the priests could safely remove his body. The Temple was that important. Now, when the Temple was destroyed all sacrifices ceased in Judaism for there was no way for them to continue the thanksgiving sacrifice. Rabbinic Judaism, is the result of the faithful striving to live in a world without Temple worship.

I'm not sure if you are that naive or pretend to be.

Among the three religions, it is now only muslims that continue the thanksgiving sacrifice of abraham: we sacrifice goats/sheep/cows/camels during the days of eid and we fast for a month, continuing the religious practices of prophets Abraham, Musa, David and Jesus (pbuh).

As for christians, there is almost nothing that christians are doing now that resemble the practices of Jesus (pbuh), almost of your religious practices were invented after Jesus (pbuh) departed.

Hence, anyone who has tiny braincells left could see that Islam is the only true abrahamic religion, along with orthodox judaism probably.

[Ramadhan]

gmcbroom,

I see that you keep repeating your accusations of Islam, eventhough I remember you have written almost exactly the same thing twice before (about Islam not being an abrahaimic faith), and I have corrected you on each occasion. There were also other issues such the conversions of priests and nuns which you repeatedly denied and which I have corrected you with evidence muttiple times. And each time you had nothing to respond and could not contest my explanations.

There is a clear line between ignorance (which I don't mind because then I can explain to you) and intentional deceits (which I really have no time for) when the same exact ignorance are posed again and again.
Remember, even if some of us forget, there's always search features which I can easily use to show you the evidence again.

[Hamza Asadullah]

There is just NO basis for Christs blood atonement of sin in ANY teaching or word of ANY Prophet, Jesus or God and that is something that NO Christian can claim because the teachings are just NOT there. Even though you may not want to accept it the fact is you cannot imply something is there when it is not. There is NO doubt that Paul brought about this concept and today this concept is still not properly defined as asserted by Christian scholars themselves. It is still up for editing and revision that is why the concept has so many differing theories depending on which denomination one is.

How can such a concept be one of the fundamentals of Christianity when it has NO basis in ANY teaching of ANY Prophet, Jesus or God?

How can such a concept be one of the fundamentals of Christianity when it is NOT even agreed upon or even properly defined as yet and as such Christian scholars agree that this theory is confusing and does not quite make sense.

Therefore there is NO doubt that this concept is NOT from God or certainly NOT from the teachings of Christ but that of Paul.

[Amigo]

Actually the story of Abraham, his son, and the ram illustrates and explain the story of Christ. The story of Christ is hidden there and it explains it more fully.
Christ faith, suffering, death, and resurrection is played out by in the event by the three charachters of Abraham, his son, and the ram.
In it we see that God is loving and merciful. But we also see that his mercy does not mean cancelation of his justice. If someone deserve death, death will certainly occur.
God's mercy does not mean that God goes back to his word and cancel out his justice, the decrees he had released. It means that God gives the ram as a gift for ransom. So both his justice and his mercy are met, because they can not contradict each other, in fact they are really the same thing. His justice and his mercy are the samething which is that man be fully alive. Only the just as Abraham/son/ram story did not illustrate the perfect picture. It was an imperfect faith, imperfect death, imperfect resurrection, imperfect sacrifice, and imperfect life risen to. Yet, with all the imperfection, it pointed out to the perfect story which is that of the real Messaih/King/Sacrifice/Priest/Prophet. Notice that Christ embodies in himself all the event of Abraham/son and all the charachters. He also embodies and illustrate the unity of God's justice and his mercy as well as the unity of God's plan for humanity.

[Ramadhan]

Actually the story of Abraham, his son, and the ram illustrates and explain the story of Christ. The story of Christ is hidden there and it explains it more fully. Christ faith, suffering, death, and resurrection is played out by in the event by the three charachters of Abraham, his son, and the ram.

Ugh... God didnt allow Abraham (pbuh) to sacrfice his son, Ishmael (pbuh).

Do you also not remember verses from your bible where God clearly hate and disallow human sacrifices:


Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou inquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. Thou shalt not do so unto the Eternal thy God: for every abomination to the Eternal, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods. [Deuteronomy 12:30-31]

Because they have forsaken me, and have estranged this place, and have burned incense in it unto other gods, whom neither they nor their fathers have known, nor the kings of Judah, and have filled this place with the blood of innocents; They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind: Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the Eternal, that this place shall no more be called Tophet, nor The Valley of the Son of Hinnom, but The Valley of Slaughter. [Jeremiah 19:4-6]

Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils, And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood. And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood. [Psalm 106:37-38]

Moreover thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters, whom thou hast borne unto me, and these hast thou sacrificed unto them to be devoured. Is this of thy W-h-oredoms a small matter? [Ezekiel 16:20]

[Ramadhan]

God's mercy does not mean that God goes back to his word and cancel out his justice, the decrees he had released. It means that God gives the ram as a gift for ransom. So both his justice and his mercy are met, because they can not contradict each other, in fact they are really the same thing. His justice and his mercy are the samething which is that man be fully alive. Only the just as Abraham/son/ram story did not illustrate the perfect picture. It was an imperfect faith, imperfect death, imperfect resurrection, imperfect sacrifice, and imperfect life risen to. Yet, with all the imperfection, it pointed out to the perfect story which is that of the real Messaih/King/Sacrifice/Priest/Prophet. Notice that Christ embodies in himself all the event of Abraham/son and all the charachters. He also embodies and illustrate the unity of God's justice and his mercy as well as the unity of God's plan for humanity.

nice words.

But can you back up your own opinion with ACTUAL verses from the words of prophets, Jesus (pbut) and God?

[Hamza Asadullah]

Actually the story of Abraham, his son, and the ram illustrates and explain the story of Christ. The story of Christ is hidden there and it explains it more fully.

Is the story of Christ being slaughtered by God's own creations in order for the blood atonement of sin so hidden that it is to be found NOWHERE in ANY teaching of ANY Prophet, Jesus or God?

Christ faith, suffering, death, and resurrection is played out by in the event by the three charachters of Abraham, his son, and the ram.

So now Abraham is a character? I thought he was a revered Prophet? Well he certainly is to Muslims

In it we see that God is loving and merciful. But we also see that his mercy does not mean cancelation of his justice. If someone deserve death, death will certainly occur.

We see mercy in a God who slaughters his only begotten son? What would the "mother of God" Mary think of such a thing?

God's mercy does not mean that God goes back to his word and cancel out his justice, the decrees he had released. It means that God gives the ram as a gift for ransom. So both his justice and his mercy are met, because they can not contradict each other, in fact they are really the same thing. His justice and his mercy are the samething which is that man be fully alive. Only the just as Abraham/son/ram story did not illustrate the perfect picture. It was an imperfect faith, imperfect death, imperfect resurrection, imperfect sacrifice, and imperfect life risen to. Yet, with all the imperfection, it pointed out to the perfect story which is that of the real Messaih/King/Sacrifice/Priest/Prophet. Notice that Christ embodies in himself all the event of Abraham/son and all the charachters. He also embodies and illustrate the unity of God's justice and his mercy as well as the unity of God's plan for humanity.

It is not historically correct to say that Jesus had come to die willingly and deliberately for the sins of men. We read in the Bible that he did NOT wish to die on the cross. For, when he knew that his enemies were plotting against his life, he declared that his "soul was exceedingly sorrowful unto death", he asked his disciples to keep watch over him to protect him from his enemies and he prayed to God, "Abba, Father, all things are possible unto Thee; take away this cup from me; nevertheless not what 1 will, but what Thou wilt." (Mark 14:36)

Secondly, we fail to see how the suffering and death of one man can wipe out the sins of others. It sounds something like the physician breaking his own head to cure the headache of his patients. The idea of substitutionary or vicarious sacrifice is illogical, meaningless and unjust.

Thirdly, the idea that shedding of blood is necessary to appease the Wrath of God has come into Christianity from the primitive man's image of God as an all-powerful demon. We see NO connection at all between sin and blood. What is necessary to wash away sin is not blood but repentance, remorse, persistent struggle against evil inclinations, development of greater sympathy for mankind and determination to carry out the Will of God as revealed to us through the prophets. The Qur'an says:

"To God does not reach the flesh or the blood I of animals they sacrifice), but unto Him is acceptable righteousness on your part" (22:37)

The doctrine of the Atonement makes the First Person of Godhead into a blood-thirsty tyrant in order to demonstrate the self-sacrificing love of the Second Person. To a dispassionate critic, the sacrifice of the Second Person appears as much misplaced and meaningless as the demand of the First Person is cruel and sadistic.

Why would God have his own begotten son slaughtered by his own creations in order to abolish the sin of his own creations? No matter which way you put it, this is clearly a very troubling concept to say the least.

Arthur Weigall makes the following significant comment on the doctrine of the Atonement:

"We can no longer accept the appalling theological doctrine that for some mystic reason a propitiatory sacrifice was necessary. It outrages either our conception of God as Almighty or else our conception of Him as All-Loving. The famous Dr. Cruden believed that for the : purpose of this sacrifice 'Christ suffered dreadful pains inflicted by God', and this of course, is a standpoint which nauseates the modem mind and which may well be termed a hideous doctrine, not unconnected with the sadistic tendencies of primitive human nature. Actually, it is of pagan origin, being, indeed, perhaps the most obvious relic of heathendom in the Faith."

The Christian scheme of salvation is not only morally and rationally unsound, but it also has NO support of the words or teachings of Jesus. Jesus may be said to have suffered for the sins of men as you have quoted in a verse above in the sense that, in order to take them out of darkness into light, he incurred the wrath of the evildoers and was tortured by them; but that does NOT mean that his death was an atonement for the sins of others and that only those who believe in his blood would be forgiven. Where does the verse state that? Clearly it does NOT.

So therefore those verses that you quoted CANNOT be used to prove your point because they do not prove that Jesus taught or said anything about the fact that his blood was necessery for the atonement of the inherited sin of mankind. But the verses and proof i have provided explicitly proves that sin is to be forgiven by the mercy of God alone and NOT by God slaughtering his son by the hands of his own creations just to forgiven a sin that mankind never committed in the first place.

Jesus had come to rescue men from sin by his teaching and the example of his religiously devoted life to the commands of God, and not by deliberately dying for them on the cross and offering his blood as a propitiation for their sins. When a young man came and asked him "Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?" he mentioned NOTHING about his atoning sacrifice and the redeeming power of Iris blood. His reply was the same as that of every other prophet. For he said: "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God; but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." (Matthew 19:17)

"Keep the commandments" that, according to Jesus, was the way to eternal life. Salvation could be gained by believing in God, eschewing evil and doing good, and not by accepting Jesus as the redeemer and believing in his blood atonement.

So the three points are that the dogma of the Atonement is unsound, for (1) man is not born in sin. (2) God does not require a price to forgive the sinners, and (3) the idea of substitutionary or vicarious sacrifice is unjust and cruel. By sinning we do NOT harm God, but ourselves.

The stain of sin on our souls CAN be removed, not by the suffering or death of any other person, whether the latter be willing or unwilling, but by our own repentance, turning away from evil and doing good. And so, when Adam, after the act of disobedience, repented and submitted himself completely to God, his sin was forgiven. Neither is the sin of Adam inherited by the children of Adam, nor did it require the suffering and death of Jesus Christ to be forgiven.

The truth is that Jesus did NOT die on the cross at all. The doctrine of the Atonement is an absolute denial of the Justice and Mercy of God. As i have already mentioned in my previous posts Islam TOTALLY rejects this dogma and declares that the forgiveness of sins cannot be obtained by the suffering and sacrifice of any other person, human or divine, but by the Grace of God and our own sincere and persistent efforts to fight against evil and do good:

(that no laden one shall bear another's load, and that man hath only that for which he maketh effort, and that his effort will be seen) (The Glorious Qur'un 53:38,40)

(Whosoever goeth right, it is only for the good of his own soul that he goeth right, and whosoever erreth, erreth only to its hurt. No laden soul can bear another's load) (17:15)

So therefore the fact that you assert that Jesus was sacrificed as a blood atonement for the sin of humanity is NOT consistant with or found in ANY words or teachings of ANY Prophet, Jesus or God but came from none other than Paul.

[Amigo]

Hello brothers,

I still have to read the long message, but as a note: I have long time Muslim friends who we like to discuss religion. One think I have learned is that Islam consider the Bible corrupt for this reason, I don't go into heave scripture because there is no point if you are the one who decide what is corrupt or not according to your understanding. Nevertheless I will try my best on known common points.

God bless you

[Ramadhan]

Hello brothers,

I still have to read the long message, but as a note: I have long time Muslim friends who we like to discuss religion. One think I have learned is that Islam consider the Bible corrupt for this reason, I don't go into heave scripture because there is no point if you are the one who decide what is corrupt or not according to your understanding. Nevertheless I will try my best on known common points.

God bless you

Amigo,

It seems you also have very little knowledge about bible.

1. Please go and study history of your bible, and then come here and tell me, what language did Jesus (pbuh) speak with his disciples? and what year was Jesus (p) living, and what is the oldest surviving bible and in what language and was written in what century and who wrote them?

2. Even your bible scholars state that bible is corrupted. The most obvious fact: Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53 - 8:11) which was never in ALL oldest bibles (codex sinaiticus, vaticanus, alexandrinus, hebrew bible), but sudenly appeared in the latin vulgate bible (600 AD), which all bible scholars have agreed as fabrication.

Corrpted means: addition, deletion, reduction, editing, etc which change the originals.

So, we have established the your bible is indeed corrupted, using YOUR OWN criteria (as confirmed by bible scholars).

Maybe you christians have no problem in fabricating such lies against Jesus (who you worship as God), that is your choice, we will see during the judgement day whether it is okay to attributing lies against God.

[Amigo]

My friend, God is not imprisoned in Books. God is far larger than them. However, just as a seed is small and yet contains a whole mighty tree, so is the Word of God in the Bible. I will not tell you whether I know the answer to those questions, I will only tell you that you don't need to be a schoolar to go to Heaven. All you need is the Word of God in your heart empowering you into life. The same God is here who was here before humanity existed, who was here before any man knew how to write, and who will be here when perhaps technology will have changed man's ways of keeping records. God is the essential, and He is here, no need to look for him in records in the past as if God is archived:)

God bless

[Ramadhan]

I will only tell you that you don't need to be a schoolar to go to Heaven

Well, it seems that in christianity you need to be scholars to understand the concept of God.

In Islam, EVERYONE from a theoretical physicist in Princeton to a illiterate subsistence farmer in the remote area of Indonesia fully understand the concept of God and are able to fully explain to non-muslims. Even an athiest understand concept of God in Islam.

Compared that to christian 3-in-1 deity, it seems only christians seminary cholars who claim to understand it.


Also, you were the one who brought up the issue that only muslims think bible is corrupted, and when I gave you evidence that not only muslims,. but bible scholars also think bible is corrupted, you suddenly shifted to talk non-sense as above.

This what happens in EVERY discussion with christian. Everytime evidence is asked from you or evidence presented to you, you suddenly talk nonsensical babbles for paragraphs.

Here, read again what your bible schiolars, christians conservative priests say about bible:

The Pericope Adulterae or the Woman taken in Adultery is found in John 7:53-8:11 in most manuscripts of John’s Gospel but is almost certainly not original there. The pericope is missing from most early manuscripts of John and is in a non-Johannine style. Quite apart from the question of the original location of this passage there is the problem of its original form. The pericope is highly variable among NT manuscripts and is regarded by some form critics as a hybrid narrative.http://hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2007/...adulterae.html

Biblical scholars are nearly all agreed that the Story of the Adulteress (also known as the Pericope Adulterae or the Pericope de Adultera) usually printed in Bibles as John 7:53-8:11 is a later addition to the Gospel. On this page I present some extended quotations from scholarly works that explain the reasons for this judgment. On another page I give an extract from one of the few scholarly defenders of the passage. To give my own opinion, it seems clear to me that the story does not belong in the Bible. If despite its absence from the early manuscripts this passage is thought to be so edifying that it is worthy of being treated as Holy Scripture, we might with equal justice add any number of edifying ancient stories to the Bible. The Quo Vadis legend about Peter's martyrdom, for instance, might just as well be added to the canonical book of Acts. For more on this, see my essay, Quo Vadis?http://www.bible-researcher.com/adult.html

Official Bible translations already recognize that the passage is not authentic. Yet why is it increasingly taught anyway? Because it has an unmistakable liberal spin to it. Let's point out the obvious.--Aschlafly 22:49, 25 March 2007 (EDT) http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Es...ulteress_Story

Do you want more proof that your bible is corrupted, mangled, where lies are attributed to Jesus, lies are attributed to God?

[Ramadhan]

ll you need is the Word of God in your heart empowering you into life. The same God is here who was here before humanity existed, who was here before any man knew how to write, and who will be here when perhaps technology will have changed man's ways of keeping records. God is the essential, and He is here, no need to look for him in records in the past as if God is archived

This is so meaningless.

You might as well believe any book is the word of God.

is there a christian who speaks with evidence?

[Amigo]

Sorry friends, I had written a reply about Abraham/son/ram. But I just lost it:( :) perhaps it was corrupt and God decided it was not good for posting. I will summarize for now what I was saying:

The ram ransomed the son of Abraham from the type of death it could die. Even then, it was not perfect sacrifice because God does not love bloody sacrifice, even that of animals. A (innocent) creature should not die for an other, especially as forced to. The lesson was that God's mercy does not cancel out his justice. If a sin deserve a particular punishment, that punishment will occur, for God does not go back on his own word; God is faithful. So what kind of 'ram' would ransom men from eternal death? God is Holy and his Justice is Holy, and his Mercy is Holy. He does not force people or creatures into sacrifice for others. Beside, no creature can ransom from eternal death. So How will we be saved. The ram was sent to the altar to ransom the son of Abraham. For those who are lost and are heading for eternal ****ation, is there anyone to be sent, is there anyone who can even reach there? No. Only God can. But nothing can contain God. God enterining created reality means the destruction of this reality. Prophets considered the goodness of God and his holiness realised that God himself was going to come into creation to restore it. But considering his majesty, they also realised that Creation will be destroyed in the proccess. So they prophetized about a suffering servant who will go about restoring all brokenness and who will have power over everything. Who will die only to enter death and destroy it. Who will restore Creation but making even more glorious than it ever was, for it will be God himself in Creation. So Jesus had to die precisely because humanity can not contain God, his death will destroy death itself because death can not contain God. At the end all sin, all suffering, all corruptions will be destroyed, and Creation renewed and even glorified.
God is not aggressive and non-violent. He came into our nature invited by the holy prayers of our ancenstors. Even death was destroyed because it attempted to swallow him according to its custom of swallowing the living. An ancient Christian wrote:
God can not die by himself, and man can not live by himself. So God in his great love, became man, so that sharing man's death, He may destroy it and give man His life. God who is eternal, became man to destroy all corruption and death, and purify humanity giving it eternal life.

God bless

[Amigo]

Naidama,

I can not quote, so I will be attempting to refer to what I am replying to.

About evidence. You are the greatest evidence you can believe in. Then all things around you. Holy Scriptures were meant to underline the evidence which is already here, the signs of God. In fact, you can tell about their true inspiration by the fact of whethere they confirm what God is showing you arlready here, or whethere they are contradicting it. So no, not all scriptures come from God, because not all scripture confirm us in the truth of God.

[Ramadhan]

The ram ransomed the son of Abraham from the type of death it could die. Even then, it was not perfect sacrifice because God does not love bloody sacrifice, even that of animals. A (innocent) creature should not die for an other, especially as forced to. The lesson was that God's mercy does not cancel out his justice. If a sin deserve a particular punishment, that punishment will occur, for God does not go back on his own word; God is faithful. So what kind of 'ram' would ransom men from eternal death? God is Holy and his Justice is Holy, and his Mercy is Holy. He does not force people or creatures into sacrifice for others. Beside, no creature can ransom from eternal death. So How will we be saved. The ram was sent to the altar to ransom the son of Abraham. For those who are lost and are heading for eternal ****ation, is there anyone to be sent, is there anyone who can even reach there? No. Only God can. But nothing can contain God. God enterining created reality means the destruction of this reality. Prophets considered the goodness of God and his holiness realised that God himself was going to come into creation to restore it. But considering his majesty, they also realised that Creation will be destroyed in the proccess. So they prophetized about a suffering servant who will go about restoring all brokenness and who will have power over everything. Who will die only to enter death and destroy it. Who will restore Creation but making even more glorious than it ever was, for it will be God himself in Creation. So Jesus had to die precisely because humanity can not contain God, his death will destroy death itself because death can not contain God. At the end all sin, all suffering, all corruptions will be destroyed, and Creation renewed and even glorified. God is not aggressive and non-violent. He came into our nature invited by the holy prayers of our ancenstors. Even death was destroyed because it attempted to swallow him according to its custom of swallowing the living. An ancient Christian wrote: God can not die by himself, and man can not live by himself. So God in his great love, became man, so that sharing man's death, He may destroy it and give man His life. God who is eternal, became man to destroy all corruption and death, and purify humanity giving it eternal life.

This is pretty convoluted story.
I am not interested what a man opinion about God and prophets (pbut).

I am interested in what God and prophets ACTUALLY say about the Jesus' blood atonement to pay for sins.

ANY man can give opinions about anything.

Are you not interested to know what your god and prophets actually said about this matter?

Or is the words of men hold more weight to you?

[Amigo]

Yes I know how it appear that in Christianity you need to be a schoolar to grasp the concept of God. It gets misleading.
However if it were true, we would need degrees before we are baptized.

[Ramadhan]

Yes I know how it appear that in Christianity you need to be a schoolar to grasp the concept of God. It gets misleading. However if it were true, we would need degrees before we are baptized.

It seems you are also unable to think logically.

Anyone can get baptized, but do they understand the concept of 3-in-1 christian deity?

Baptized is just an ablution, washing with water.

[Ramadhan]

I'd like to get back to the topic at hand:

Is there a christian who can provide words of God, jesus or prophets (pbut) that state Jesus blood atonement was needed to atone the sins of humanity?

Surely the fundamental pillar of christianity belief should get a mention by God, Jesus or prophets?

[Amigo]

Are you saying that nobody mentioned John 6? let me guess, it is corrupt according to Islam right?
What words of Jesus would you find acceptable? from what source?

[Ramadhan]

Please bring the verses and explain to us how it was state a blood atonement by Jesus.

[Amigo]

In reply to message 381

Every man's word is just an opinion until confirmed by experience.

For verses. I am sorry brother, you can think what you want, but I am not about to engage in spinning verses. Beside, I don't like to pick verses, I like to read chapters if not entire book and grasp the full message in all context. The Bible is one Word.

[siam]

"An ancient Christian wrote: God can not die by himself, and man can not live by himself. So God in his great love, became man, so that sharing man's death, He may destroy it and give man His life. God who is eternal, became man to destroy all corruption and death, and purify humanity giving it eternal life."

;DI see people dying all the time---If you want to see it too---you might want to visit Afghanistan perhaps?
There is plenty of corruption too---did you not hear of wikileaks?
----Therefore, either God is totally inefficient, and/or powerless ---or your concept of God is totally flawed......;D
....but then, anyone who thinks God "needs" to "purify humanity" by becomming human:hmm: has already comitted intellectual suicide....IMO ;D
;D

seriously though---explaining the trinity to a Muslim is like explaining to a scientist that the world is flat---its a hopeless cause.

[Woodrow]

The concept of "Blood Atonement"seems to have been an error originally begun in the very early years of Catholicism. It was never part of Judaic belief, blood sacrifice was never an act of atonement, but rather a visible act of obedience and self sacrifice to give up things we value to follow God(swt). This heresy of blood atonement was corrected by St, Anselm in the very early 12th Century, when Anselm pointed out that when the Church taught Christ was a Blood Atonement, it was teaching that God(swt) had to pay Satan a ransom for men's souls. this was later explained further by Luther and was one of the first Catholic errors corrected by the reformation. but this ancient heresy of blood atonement seems to be making a return.

[Amigo]

To msg 388

Yes, God does not need anything. He is self-sufficient. For this, the only offering acceptable to him is Thanksgiving. Even this thanksgiving is only good to us, because it does not add anything to the glory of God, however, it makes us right with him as we are properly aligned with his goodness.

Divine power reaches everything even death, it destroyes death because it comes into contact with death, it also set us free and gives us life because it comes into contact with us and our realities. Of course it is non imposing, they are saved who want to be saved. Again God does not need anything, He does not even need to save us. We are the ones who need salvation, and those who wants it, welcome his saving power.

God bless

[siam]

@ Amigo
What does it mean to "destroy death"---I don't see any destruction of death......

and if "the only offering acceptable is Thanksgiving"-----"and he does not need to save us"----then why does "God" kill himself?

@ Woodrow
interesting info....so what did this Anselm propose as the alternate reason for crucifixion if not blood atonement?

[Amigo]

Hi Siam

God does not kill himself.
Death swallows up God and dies itself.

[Woodrow]

@ Amigo

@ Woodrow
interesting info....so what did this Anselm propose as the alternate reason for crucifixion if not blood atonement?

He introduced a Substitution theory in which, he received all of the punishment for all of humankind's sins. In other words he took on the punishment each human would have to suffer. Not an atonement, a taking on the punishment so we can escape without punishment.

Luther later refined this and today that is the view of many Christians.We do not accept it as Islam teaches each of us must accept and face the consequences for our own actions, nobody can take on the punishment for us.

[siam]

Some info for those who (like me)are confused about Christianity......
Since neither Judaism nor Islam have the false notion of "original sin"---none of these theories makes any sense.....

The Ransom Theory -- God deceitfully bribes and tricks Satan:
This was the dominant belief in the early Christian church. It has also been called the "Classic" theory of the atonement. It was accepted by church leaders for about a millennium, from the second to the twelfth century CE. There are very few theologians outside of the Eastern Orthodox churches and the Protestant Word-faith Movement who believe in it today. 1 However, one might argue that this concept may be the most accurate theory of all, because it was accepted by Christian leaders within two centuries after Yeshua's (a.k.a. Jesus Christ) and Paul's death. This happened when memories of their teachings were still relatively fresh.
The early church father Origen (185-254 CE) was a leader of the Alexandrian School in Egypt. He suggested that, as a result of the sin of Adam and Eve, Satan had acquired a formal dominion over, and ownership of, all of humanity and the rest of the world. In order to free people from the grip of Satan, God agreed to arrange the death of Yeshua, his son, as a ransom price to be paid to the devil. This would formally compensate for Adam and Eve's sin, and would release humanity from Satan's grip. Origen wrote: "The payment could not be [made] to God [be]cause God was not holding sinners in captivity for a ransom, so the payment had to be to the devil." 2 Origen believed that Satan accepted the offer because he assumed that he would end up with ownership of Yeshua. The devil didn't realize that Yeshua would escape his clutches. God deceitfully pulled a "bait and switch" operation by resurrecting Yeshua a day and a half after his death on the cross. This left Satan without any reward. Yeshua had escaped Satan's grasp and was reunited with God. Origen concluded that humans can then be reconciled with God if they trust Yeshua as Lord and Savior.
The Satisfaction Theory
The eleventh-century scholar Saint Anselm didn't like the Ransom Theory. He believed that an outlaw like the Devil had no right to exert power over humankind, and therefore God didn't need to pay him anything for our release.
To replace the Ransom Theory, Anselm put forward another explanation known as the Satisfaction Theory (or Debt Theory). According to this theory, humankind owes a debt to God because we dishonored him through our disobedience and sin. But his pride, as well as the need for universal justice, prevents him from simply forgiving us. To resolve the matter, Jesus volunteered to pay our debt for us by suffering and dying on the cross. God accepted this act of love as a full atonement, and thus satisfied, he then forgave us and offered us salvation.
Some people still wonder why God didn't just forgive us outright. Another criticism of this theory is that it puts Jesus in the role of a sacrificial lamb. In ancient times lambs and other animals were often sacrificed to pagan gods as a way to appease them. It was thought that the death of an animal could serve as a substitute payment for a person's sins. Similarly, in the Satisfaction Theory, the suffering and death of Jesus serves as a substitute payment for humankind's sins.

The Moral Exemplar Theory
According to this theory, Jesus tried to help us obtain salvation by giving us a perfect moral example of how to live. He hoped that his teachings and his example would inspire us to lift ourselves out of sin and enter into true communion with God.
This theory, which is also called the Moral Influence Theory, is usually attributed to the medieval scholar Peter Abelard. Many Christians have found it attractive and helpful. But some people wonder how it explains the crucifixion, since Jesus could have given us his teachings, and also provided a perfect moral example, without dying on the cross. One possible answer is that his death, though not strictly necessary, helped to draw attention to his life and therefore made his mission more effective.
Unfortunately, many people continue to ignore the example that Jesus set, and still commit immoral acts. Thus, if the purpose of his mission was to inspire everyone to live without sin, so far it hasn't been fully successful.

The Penal-Substitution Theory
The basic idea of this theory is that Jesus suffered and died to take upon himself the punishment that we ourselves deserve. Although God wasn't willing to forgive us outright, he was willing to accept the punishment of Jesus as a substitute for our own punishment. Thus, in this theory Jesus takes the role of an innocent scapegoat who is punished for the sins of others.
On one occasion God punished humankind by sending a flood that killed everyone on the earth except a few people on Noah's boat. But according to the Penal-Substitution theory, when humankind later needed to be punished again, God allowed Jesus to take the punishment for us.
Some of the underlying assumptions of this theory can be found in the letters of Saint Paul. The Protestant Reformers of the sixteenth century took those assumptions and developed them into the modern form of the theory. In some ways it resembles the Satisfaction Theory, since Jesus' act of taking our punishment for us is basically equivalent to paying our debt for us.
The Penal-Substitution Theory is accepted by many modern Protestants. Most of them also believe that Jesus' sacrifice brought the possibility of forgiveness to everyone, including people who have lived since the crucifixion and people who will be born in the future. This is known as universal atonement. But some Christians believe that Jesus died only for the "elect", a small minority who are predestined to be saved. This is called definite (or limited) atonement.

The Governmental Theory
According to this theory, God acts as a governor (or overseer) of all life on the earth. But he became very displeased with the way people were behaving, and he wanted to show us that we deserve severe punishment. To demonstrate just how severe, he sent Jesus to suffer and die.
Thus, the crucifixion was meant to be a demonstration of the punishment that we all deserve. By giving us this demonstration, God hoped that we would realize the seriousness of our sins and reform ourselves. He could have actually punished us, and would have been justified in doing so, but decided to merely give us a warning, and let us have another chance.
One problem with this theory is the fact that many people have lived and died without ever hearing about Jesus or the crucifixion, and therefore were never aware of God's warning. And even now, many people who are aware of it appear to disregard it.

The Christus Victor Theory
In 1931 Gustaf Aulen published the book Christus Victor, in which he argued that Jesus came to earth to defeat the evil forces that had gained control over us. To win our salvation, Jesus needed to overcome both Satan and death. The name Christus Victor, which means "Christ the Victor", refers to his successful accomplishment of this task.
In some ways this theory is similar to the Ransom Theory, for it assumes that humankind had come under the control of the Devil after the sins of Adam and Eve caused God to abandon us. But in this theory, instead of God paying Satan a ransom for our release, Jesus freed us by directly defeating the Evil One. And his resurrection proved that death can also be conquered.
In his book Aulen argues that this was the original belief of the earliest Christians. It is also the basic belief of many modern Eastern Orthodox Christians, and in recent years it has become popular among some evangelical Christians.

[Woodrow]

Some info for those who (like me)are confused about Christianity......
Since neither Judaism nor Islam have the false notion of "original sin"---none of these theories makes any sense.....

The Ransom Theory -- God deceitfully bribes and tricks Satan:
This was the dominant belief in the early Christian church. It has also been called the "Classic" theory of the atonement. It was accepted by church leaders for about a millennium, from the second to the twelfth century CE. There are very few theologians outside of the Eastern Orthodox churches and the Protestant Word-faith Movement who believe in it today. 1 However, one might argue that this concept may be the most accurate theory of all, because it was accepted by Christian leaders within two centuries after Yeshua's (a.k.a. Jesus Christ) and Paul's death. This happened when memories of their teachings were still relatively fresh.
The early church father Origen (185-254 CE) was a leader of the Alexandrian School in Egypt. He suggested that, as a result of the sin of Adam and Eve, Satan had acquired a formal dominion over, and ownership of, all of humanity and the rest of the world. In order to free people from the grip of Satan, God agreed to arrange the death of Yeshua, his son, as a ransom price to be paid to the devil. This would formally compensate for Adam and Eve's sin, and would release humanity from Satan's grip. Origen wrote: "The payment could not be [made] to God [be]cause God was not holding sinners in captivity for a ransom, so the payment had to be to the devil." 2 Origen believed that Satan accepted the offer because he assumed that he would end up with ownership of Yeshua. The devil didn't realize that Yeshua would escape his clutches. God deceitfully pulled a "bait and switch" operation by resurrecting Yeshua a day and a half after his death on the cross. This left Satan without any reward. Yeshua had escaped Satan's grasp and was reunited with God. Origen concluded that humans can then be reconciled with God if they trust Yeshua as Lord and Savior.
The Satisfaction Theory
The eleventh-century scholar Saint Anselm didn't like the Ransom Theory. He believed that an outlaw like the Devil had no right to exert power over humankind, and therefore God didn't need to pay him anything for our release.
To replace the Ransom Theory, Anselm put forward another explanation known as the Satisfaction Theory (or Debt Theory). According to this theory, humankind owes a debt to God because we dishonored him through our disobedience and sin. But his pride, as well as the need for universal justice, prevents him from simply forgiving us. To resolve the matter, Jesus volunteered to pay our debt for us by suffering and dying on the cross. God accepted this act of love as a full atonement, and thus satisfied, he then forgave us and offered us salvation.
Some people still wonder why God didn't just forgive us outright. Another criticism of this theory is that it puts Jesus in the role of a sacrificial lamb. In ancient times lambs and other animals were often sacrificed to pagan gods as a way to appease them. It was thought that the death of an animal could serve as a substitute payment for a person's sins. Similarly, in the Satisfaction Theory, the suffering and death of Jesus serves as a substitute payment for humankind's sins.

The Moral Exemplar Theory
According to this theory, Jesus tried to help us obtain salvation by giving us a perfect moral example of how to live. He hoped that his teachings and his example would inspire us to lift ourselves out of sin and enter into true communion with God.
This theory, which is also called the Moral Influence Theory, is usually attributed to the medieval scholar Peter Abelard. Many Christians have found it attractive and helpful. But some people wonder how it explains the crucifixion, since Jesus could have given us his teachings, and also provided a perfect moral example, without dying on the cross. One possible answer is that his death, though not strictly necessary, helped to draw attention to his life and therefore made his mission more effective.
Unfortunately, many people continue to ignore the example that Jesus set, and still commit immoral acts. Thus, if the purpose of his mission was to inspire everyone to live without sin, so far it hasn't been fully successful.

The Penal-Substitution Theory
The basic idea of this theory is that Jesus suffered and died to take upon himself the punishment that we ourselves deserve. Although God wasn't willing to forgive us outright, he was willing to accept the punishment of Jesus as a substitute for our own punishment. Thus, in this theory Jesus takes the role of an innocent scapegoat who is punished for the sins of others.
On one occasion God punished humankind by sending a flood that killed everyone on the earth except a few people on Noah's boat. But according to the Penal-Substitution theory, when humankind later needed to be punished again, God allowed Jesus to take the punishment for us.
Some of the underlying assumptions of this theory can be found in the letters of Saint Paul. The Protestant Reformers of the sixteenth century took those assumptions and developed them into the modern form of the theory. In some ways it resembles the Satisfaction Theory, since Jesus' act of taking our punishment for us is basically equivalent to paying our debt for us.
The Penal-Substitution Theory is accepted by many modern Protestants. Most of them also believe that Jesus' sacrifice brought the possibility of forgiveness to everyone, including people who have lived since the crucifixion and people who will be born in the future. This is known as universal atonement. But some Christians believe that Jesus died only for the "elect", a small minority who are predestined to be saved. This is called definite (or limited) atonement.

The Governmental Theory
According to this theory, God acts as a governor (or overseer) of all life on the earth. But he became very displeased with the way people were behaving, and he wanted to show us that we deserve severe punishment. To demonstrate just how severe, he sent Jesus to suffer and die.
Thus, the crucifixion was meant to be a demonstration of the punishment that we all deserve. By giving us this demonstration, God hoped that we would realize the seriousness of our sins and reform ourselves. He could have actually punished us, and would have been justified in doing so, but decided to merely give us a warning, and let us have another chance.
One problem with this theory is the fact that many people have lived and died without ever hearing about Jesus or the crucifixion, and therefore were never aware of God's warning. And even now, many people who are aware of it appear to disregard it.

The Christus Victor Theory
In 1931 Gustaf Aulen published the book Christus Victor, in which he argued that Jesus came to earth to defeat the evil forces that had gained control over us. To win our salvation, Jesus needed to overcome both Satan and death. The name Christus Victor, which means "Christ the Victor", refers to his successful accomplishment of this task.
In some ways this theory is similar to the Ransom Theory, for it assumes that humankind had come under the control of the Devil after the sins of Adam and Eve caused God to abandon us. But in this theory, instead of God paying Satan a ransom for our release, Jesus freed us by directly defeating the Evil One. And his resurrection proved that death can also be conquered.
In his book Aulen argues that this was the original belief of the earliest Christians. It is also the basic belief of many modern Eastern Orthodox Christians, and in recent years it has become popular among some evangelical Christians.

I jumped ahead too fast. You are correct Anselm introduced the Satisfaction theory, this was later refined by others, much by Luther, to become the Penal-substitution theory.

[siam]

Hi Siam

God does not kill himself.
Death swallows up God and dies itself.

Why does "death" have to die? ---is this "death" a person/Divine/God/Devil...or what? and how is it that this "death" is so far Superior/powerful that it can "swallow God" ?

----for centuries the Jews were accused of "Deicide"---which means "Killing God"---do look up your history.......
which means ---- either the Jews "killed God" or "God" killed himself---or what?

[siam]

He introduced a Substitution theory in which, he received all of the punishment for all of humankind's sins. In other words he took on the punishment each human would have to suffer. Not an atonement, a taking on the punishment so we can escape without punishment.

Luther later refined this and today that is the view of many Christians.We do not accept it as Islam teaches each of us must accept and face the consequences for our own actions, nobody can take on the punishment for us.

:D Thanks Woodrow---Yr explanation is easier on both the eyes and the mind than the confusing bulk I posted.....

[Hamza Asadullah]

Hi Siam

God does not kill himself.
Death swallows up God and dies itself.

Hola Amigo,

Death does not overtake God for nothing overtakes God. God himself created death so how can his own creation overcome him? For he is beyond any deficiency overtaking him

There is no god but He,
The Living, the Everlasting,
Slumber seizes Him not, neither sleep,To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and the earth.
Who is there that can intercede with His, except by His leave?
He knows what lies before them and what is after them,
And they comprehend not anything of His Knowledge save as He wills.
His throne comprises the heavens and the earth,
The preserving of them fatigues Him not,
And He is the All-High, All-Glorious.

[Al-Quran: Surat al-Baqarah, Ayah 255]

[Woodrow]

Just a thought to throw out.

If Jesus(as) suffered for man's sins and is God)swt), that means that each and every human is responsible of causing an all just and all merciful God(swt) to suffer unimaginable pain. What man could live with such guilt and face an eternity in heaven constantly knowing he had caused his Savior to suffer.

An eternity in deserved hell would be less painful for a man, than living an eternity in heaven with that guilt.

[Amigo]

Woodrow,
You are not precise in your descriptions but you are right that we have sinned greatly against God.
But when we admit it and accept his forgiveness, we receive also his peace and reconciliation.
That's why the only sacrifice acceptable to God is Thanksgiving, because such a great forgiveness is part of what we are thankful for.

[Amigo]

Hola Hamza81 :)

That was a way of speaking the great mystery of salvation.
I did not mean that God got tired and died or something like that. Certainly these things don't happen to God as the quote you shared said.

What I meant was that God while being non-violent is yet deadly himself by his being. So when the evils of violence and death approches him, it is the evils which perishes, not God.
No, God is not the Author of death. God is only the Author of all that is good. Satan is the Author of death.

[Amigo]

Also Woodrow
There is no guilt in heaven, that's one of the reasons it is heaven.

Heaven and Hell are the one and the same thing. The difference is between the people who are in there.
A small analogy can be like comparing a fish and a cat in water; a thief and an athlete in a place that knows no darkness; etc...

[Amigo]

Why does death have to die?
Death is the last ennemy of mankind, it faces its own judgements and 'dies'. God is all good, He wants all man to live and enjoy life to the fullest.

Is death a person/God/...
No, a reality, you surely know what death is, the basics...:)

How is it that death is so far superior and powerfull?
Good question, think about it.
Can it overpower God?
God wouldn't be God if He could be overpowered by death...but no one else can overpower it, that's how powerful it is. This is also why only God can forgive sin, because sin is what brings people to death.

Jews accused of killing God?
Actually all men are guilty.
Ever heard of people killing the truth?
Can truth die? (this would be a nice good new thread:) )

[Amigo]

Oh sorry, forgot to point out that this (above) is a reply to siam.

[Grace Seeker]

Just a thought to throw out.

If Jesus(as) suffered for man's sins and is God)swt), that means that each and every human is responsible of causing an all just and all merciful God(swt) to suffer unimaginable pain. What man could live with such guilt and face an eternity in heaven constantly knowing he had caused his Savior to suffer.

Woodrow, you are right in saying that we each do have the burden ofrealizing what the consequences of our actions meant for God. I think you are wrong in your conclusion that this means we must live with guilt. Guilt is a legal pronouncement on a person. God has not made that pronouncement. That is the whole point of these atonement theories, God declares us not guilty.

You may complain that God is then unjust toward his own justice and on that point I would have to agree. But again, that is exactly the point on which Christianity and Islam part company -- in one religion mankind seeks to have a record of merit and thereby pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps, in the other we are totally dependent on God who grants us unmerited grace.

Perhaps you meant not to say "guilt", but "shame". Shame is a feeling internal to each one of us when confronted with the recognition that we are guilty of something -- in this case causing Christ to suffer death on the cross. The good news is that the Father's love (as exemplified by the Father in Jesus' story of the prodigal son (Luke 15)), is so great as to fill us with his own sense of joy instead of the shame we would otherwise no doubt feel.

Just a [second] thought to throw out.

An eternity in deserved hell would be less painful for a man, than living an eternity in heaven with that guilt.

"God, in the end, gives people what they most want, including freedom from himself. What could be more fair?" ~C.S. Lewis

[Woodrow]

Woodrow, you are right in saying that we each do have the burden ofrealizing what the consequences of our actions meant for God. I think you are wrong in your conclusion that this means we must live with guilt. Guilt is a legal pronouncement on a person. God has not made that pronouncement. That is the whole point of these atonement theories, God declares us not guilty.

You may complain that God is then unjust toward his own justice and on that point I would have to agree. But again, that is exactly the point on which Christianity and Islam part company -- in one religion mankind seeks to have a record of merit and thereby pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps, in the other we are totally dependent on God who grants us unmerited grace.

Perhaps you meant not to say "guilt", but "shame". Shame is a feeling internal to each one of us when confronted with the recognition that we are guilty of something -- in this case causing Christ to suffer death on the cross. The good news is that the Father's love (as exemplified by the Father in Jesus' story of the prodigal son (Luke 15)), is so great as to fill us with his own sense of joy instead of the shame we would otherwise no doubt feel.




"God, in the end, gives people what they most want, including freedom from himself. What could be more fair?" ~C.S. Lewis

Peace Gene,

After reading your critique, I agree shame would have been a better choice of word.