The Apostle Paul and his role in Christianity

[Khalid Saifullah]

(overview)

•Paul (formerly Saul) was a Jewish Roman citizen who was one of the greatest enemies of Jesus.

•Although Paul left Tarsus, a city in Cilicia (in present day Turkey) for Jerusalem during the time of Jesus, Paul never met Jesus or any of his closest apostles.

•Paul was responsible for the persecution of Nazarenes (early Christians). Paul even killed some Nazarenes.

•It is reported that before his “vision” Paul desired to marry a women called Popea, who was the beautiful and ambitious daughter of the high priest of the Jews. She rejected Paul’s offer for marriage and went to Rome to pursue a career as an actress. She rose in ranks until she slept with Nero and ultimately married him. Due to this, Paul had good reason to resent both Jews and Romans.

•On a journey to Damascus, Paul claimed to have met Jesus in a vision and became a follower as a result.

•Paul began preaching the so-called ‘teachings of Christ’.

•Paul claimed that Jesus was the ‘son of God’.

•The Jews considered this blasphemy and began to persecute him.

•In preaching to non-Jews Paul was highly successful, he became known as the “Apostle to the Gentiles” and the greatest propagator of Christianity.
Paul’s corruption of Christianity

•The longer Paul preached the further he drifted away from the teachings of Jesus.

•Paul’s teaching were greatly influenced
by many forms of Paganism: Greek, Roman, Persian, Egyptian, Mesopotamian, etc.

•Paul taught the concept of Jesus as "The Word", who was the ‘Son of God’.

•Although, he did not teach the divinity of Jesus nor the doctrine of the Trinity.

•Paul taught concepts such as Jesus dying for our sins and that his suffering redeems his followers.

•Paul also helped shift the image of Jesus as a man to the new image of Christ who was no longer a Prophet of God but was a separate yet indivisible part of God.

•He taught that man can only achieve salvation and forgiveness by accepting Christ.

•This concept allowed followers to disregard Jewish Law such as circumcision.

•Paul believed that these additions were necessary if his version of Christianity was to succeed in the Roman Empire that was home to many pagan and mysterious
religions.

•Many of these pagan convert brought with them their pagan ideas and rituals.

•This new image of ‘Christ’ allowed the intellectuals in Greece and Rome to assimilate their own philosophy of what Paul and his followers were preaching.

•Paul believed that he needed to introduce Christ this way in order to get the Roman’s to accept the teachings.

•In the Bible Paul is found to have said, “But if through my lie the truth of God abounded to His glory, why am I also still being judged as a sinner?”

•The Roman view of God/ existence was a tripartite one.

•As mentioned in a previous lesson Rome had three forms of government.

•Rome also had the concept of Jupiter, Neptune and Pluto being the three major interconnected Gods.

•This tripartite (consisting of three parts) view was not unique to Rome, in the Indian religion there is the trinitarian group of Brahma, Vishna, and Shiva. In
Ancient Egyptian religion there is the group of gods called Osiris, Isis and Horus. In Greece they were Zeus, Poseidon, and Aidoneus. In Babylonia and Assyria they were Anos, lllinos, and Aos.

•There where many other civilizations that had this tripartite view of God including but not limited to the Persians, the Phoenicians, the Celtic nations, the Germanic nations, Siberia, Japan, Scandinavia and Mexico.

•Later, they included the ‘Holy Ghost’ into Paul’s concept of Jesus being the son of the father and the ‘Trinity’ was born.

•The Greek language was not vast nor supple enough to carry the entire meaning of what Jesus taught.

•The teachings were re-worded and changes were made.

•When the Hebrew Gospels were translated into Greek these changes were made permanent and all previous Gospels in Hebrew were destroyed or suppressed by
the church.

•Among the destroyed texts were the teachings of Barnabas, who was a close disciples of Jesus and propagated the original teachings of Jesus.

•The Gospel of Barnabas opposes the divinity of Jesus, it emphasizes that Jesus did not die on the cross, it condemns Paul and rejects his evangelism and it
explicitly prophesizes the coming of Muhammad by name.

•Paul was able to spread his teachings further than Barnabas because Paul was a Roman citizen who also spoke Greek; he was able to carefully maneuver in the
land

End

[Khalid Saifullah]

Paul’s influence on Christianity (continued ) ..... look for part one above, pls

•Posthumously, Barnabas’s teachings (Unitarian Christianity) spread to the east and to the south, eventually reaching across North Africa.

•Paul’s teachings spread up northwards up through Greece, Italy and then Europe.

•In 366 CE an order was issued by Pope Damasis that the Gospel of Barnabas should no longer be read.

•Similar decrees were issued in 382, 465 and 492.

•After that it disappeared from the pages of history until the Turkish Ministry of Culture and Tourism announced in In February 2012, claim that a biblical
manuscript was deposited in the Ethnography Museum of Ankara.

•Many believe that it is the Gospel of Barnabas.

•Paul went on numerous missionary journeys throughout the Roman Empire. He started churches, then wrote letters back to them to offer counsel and
encouragement.

•Many of these letters would become part of the Christian scriptures, the "New Testament.“

•14 of the 27 books of the New Testament are attributed to Paul.

Paul's influence is so great on Early Christianity, that many scholars have attributed the founding of "Christianity" as we know it today to Paul, not Jesus.

[Umar Ibn Farooq]

jazakallah khair

realy interesting. might show it to some bros

[Serinity]

:salam:

Paul is a false apostle.

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

[Umar Ibn Farooq]

Paul’s influence on Christianity (continued ) ..... look for part one above, pls

•Posthumously, Barnabas’s teachings (Unitarian Christianity) spread to the east and to the south, eventually reaching across North Africa.

•Paul’s teachings spread up northwards up through Greece, Italy and then Europe.

•In 366 CE an order was issued by Pope Damasis that the Gospel of Barnabas should no longer be read.

•Similar decrees were issued in 382, 465 and 492.

•After that it disappeared from the pages of history until the Turkish Ministry of Culture and Tourism announced in In February 2012, claim that a biblical
manuscript was deposited in the Ethnography Museum of Ankara.

•Many believe that it is the Gospel of Barnabas.

•Paul went on numerous missionary journeys throughout the Roman Empire. He started churches, then wrote letters back to them to offer counsel and
encouragement.

•Many of these letters would become part of the Christian scriptures, the "New Testament.“

•14 of the 27 books of the New Testament are attributed to Paul.

Paul's influence is so great on Early Christianity, that many scholars have attributed the founding of "Christianity" as we know it today to Paul, not Jesus.

if you can give me proof regarding your points brother, I'd appreciate it

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Khalid Saifullah; thanks for sharing,

When I read scriptures from other faiths, I try and search for the good things that inspire me. When I read quotes from the Quran posted on this forum, I try and learn, it helps me find a greater understanding of my own Christian faith.

In the spirit of searching for a greatest meaning of 'One God'

Eric

[talibilm]

if you can give me proof regarding your points brother, I'd appreciate it

:sl: bro @Khalid Saifullah

So that we can judge about Apostle Paul more accurately. Jazakallah Khair.

[goodwill]

•Among the destroyed texts were the teachings of Barnabas, who was a close disciples of Jesus and propagated the original teachings of Jesus.

•The Gospel of Barnabas opposes the divinity of Jesus, it emphasizes that Jesus did not die on the cross, it condemns Paul and rejects his evangelism and it
explicitly prophesizes the coming of Muhammad by name.

•Paul was able to spread his teachings further than Barnabas because Paul was a Roman citizen who also spoke Greek; he was able to carefully maneuver in the
land

End

The so-called Gospel of Barnabas was a late forgery that contradicts both Christianity and Islam.

[Logikon]

14 of the 27 books of the New Testament are attributed to Paul.

Christians say there were a whole lot of books, many of which repeated themselves. The best were brought together in a library. Hence Bible is the greek word for library.

Muslims say "No, there was only one book, it was revealed to Christ and then corrupted.

So, how could a Muslim possibly claim there are 27 books in the New Testament?

Even we athiests know there were lots of books written by different authors and brought together to create the bible.

The gospels of Mathew, Mark Luke and John are like 4 witnesses to a football match - and they wrote about it many years later. No matter the details they all agree on the result.
.

[Scimitar]

Paul was no "apostle" lol

Scimi

[Scimitar]

Khalid bro, Paul didn't just kill some Nazarenes - he was anchored mercenary paid to kill the nazarenes

the guy is as dodgy as sin

even the Jews as well as the companions of Jesus loathes Paul because he preached a completely different doctrine to what the Old Testament did - and Jesus pbuh observed the Torah laws while Paul did away with them.

this angered the children of Israel so much that the followers of Jesus and the children of Israel both attempted to stone Paul to death but the "Romans" protected him and told him "go preach to the Gentiles" instead coz they knew no better lol

the irony is - Jesus pbuh said "I have only come for the lost sheep of Israel" - not no Gentiles lol

Paul - one dajjal among many

Scimi

[goodwill]

Khalid bro, Paul didn't just kill some Nazarenes - he was anchored mercenary paid to kill the nazarenes

the guy is as dodgy as sin

even the Jews as well as the companions of Jesus loathes Paul because he preached a completely different doctrine to what the Old Testament did - and Jesus pbuh observed the Torah laws while Paul did away with them.

this angered the children of Israel so much that the followers of Jesus and the children of Israel both attempted to stone Paul to death but the "Romans" protected him and told him "go preach to the Gentiles" instead coz they knew no better lol

the irony is - Jesus pbuh said "I have only come for the lost sheep of Israel" - not no Gentiles lol

Paul - one dajjal among many

Scimi

What are the historical sources for your claims that Jesus’s companions loathed Paul and that Jesus’s followers attempted to stone Paul?


Also, do you know the context of when the Lord Jesus said, “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel”? It was just before He helped a Gentile woman and her daughter.

[Scimitar]

What are the historical sources for your claims that Jesus’s companions loathed Paul and that Jesus’s followers attempted to stone Paul?

Jewish Encyclopedia website has the dirt, if you wanna dig :)

Also, do you know the context of when the Lord Jesus said, “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel”? It was just before He helped a Gentile woman and her daughter.

I'm not sure you understand your own words here goodwill, Jesus helping a gentile woman and preaching torah to the children of Israel are two very different things.

Scimi

[Scimitar]

The so-called Gospel of Barnabas was a late forgery that contradicts both Christianity and Islam.

Good point. Lots of Muslims use the Gospel of Barnabas (there are actually two which can become confusing, the other being the Epistle of Barnabus) as some sort of proof, whilst not realising that other parts of the very same text directly contradict the teachings of Quran.

I find it odd that Muslims would use such a book as proof against Christianity when it also contradicts a lot of Christian teachings and thus - rejected from the canon.

Not to mention, the Canon wasn't exactly "clean cut" if you know what I mean.

Either way, it just makes the use of such a work (Gospel of Barnabas), unworkable.

Scimi

[goodwill]

Jewish Encyclopedia website has the dirt, if you wanna dig :)




I'm not sure you understand your own words here goodwill, Jesus helping a gentile woman and preaching torah to the children of Israel are two very different things.

Scimi

Do you view the Jewish Encyclopedia as an unbiased source of information about the apostle Paul? Do you also consider the Jewish Encyclopedia to be reliable in what it says about Jesus and Muhammad? Or, like the Gospel of Barnabas, does the Jewish Encyclopedia contradict both Christianity and Islam? If you like Jewish sources, I know of a collection of mostly Jewish sources that is more reliable :)




The Lord Jesus not only helped the Gentiles, but He also commended the greatness of their faith in Him. The Hebrew prophets had indicated long before that the Messiah’s mission would extend also to the Gentiles, our Lord’s “other sheep.” Even the Quran calls the Torah and Gospel “a guidance for mankind” rather than a guidance for the Jews alone (3:3,4).

[goodwill]

I find it odd that Muslims would use such a book as proof against Christianity.

Scimi

I do not find it odd. Surah 7:157 claims that Muhammad is mentioned in the Bible. But since Muhammad is not mentioned in the Bible, it is understandable that some would look to the Gospel of Barnabas for that reference.

[Scimitar]

Have you studied the gospels of James and Joseph? Highly controversial.

Scimi

[Nobody's Girl]

The truth is: Jesus was a *jew* preaching *judaism* to other jews.

We also know that Jesus claimed to be the messaih who would bring back the kingdom of God to this world.

And simply that is why the romans attempted to crucify him.

Fast forward.

The Roman Emporer (sorry forgot his name) converted to christianity and decided that there was too much contorversy regarding the consensus on the divinity of Christ. He summoned all the Christian clergy for the Council of Nicea. And there you have it Roman Catholicism was born. They approved of the divinity of Christ and the trinity.


Honestly I think if Jesus came back to this world he will destruct the greedy banks, abolish the vatican, and spend the rest of his life in Africa or Asia helping people who live in povert.

Just my two cents.

[Nobody's Girl]

That said. I love Jesus Christ. I think he is one of the most extraordinary men that lived on earth. I try my best to follow his amazing teachings. However, no matter which way I look at it I just can't bring myself to worship a man. I have serious issues with men. But that is not entirely why I rejecr the notion that Christ is Lord. There maybe historical evidence he was crucified as mentioned in Zealot(didn't read the whole book just excerpts) or it was Judas the traitor who God Almighty made to look like him. I just think that worshipping people is not the right way to the Divine.

Another two cents.

[goodwill]

That said. I love Jesus Christ. I think he is one of the most extraordinary men that lived on earth. I try my best to follow his amazing teachings. However, no matter which way I look at it I just can't bring myself to worship a man. I have serious issues with men. But that is not entirely why I rejecr the notion that Christ is Lord. There maybe historical evidence he was crucified as mentioned in Zealot(didn't read the whole book just excerpts) or it was Judas the traitor who God Almighty made to look like him. I just think that worshipping people is not the right way to the Divine.

Another two cents.

Dear NG, I sympathize with your opposition to worshipping a mere mortal. Do you believe that prayer is part of worship? Muslims address both Allah and Muhammad in daily prayer, but isn’t that shirk? As you may know, the oft-repeated phrase, "As-salamu alaika ay-yuhan nabiy-yu,” means, "Peace be upon you, O Prophet." But can Muhammad hear himself being addressed? Anyway, if you love Jesus Christ, know that He loves you too. He demonstrated the highest form of love, self-sacrifice, so that all of us, Jew and Gentile, might know the love of God toward us. If Jesus was not God in the flesh, then the fulness of God’s love has not been revealed to the world, and a mere man has demonstrated a higher form of love than God Himself is capable of demonstrating.

[Born_Believer]

Dear NG, I sympathize with your opposition to worshipping a mere mortal. Do you believe that prayer is part of worship? Muslims address both Allah and Muhammad in daily prayer, but isn’t that shirk? As you may know, the oft-repeated phrase, "As-salamu alaika ay-yuhan nabiy-yu,” means, "Peace be upon you, O Prophet." But can Muhammad hear himself being addressed? Anyway, if you love Jesus Christ, know that He loves you too. He demonstrated the highest form of love, self-sacrifice, so that all of us, Jew and Gentile, might know the love of God toward us. If Jesus was not God in the flesh, then the fulness of God’s love has not been revealed to the world, and a mere man has demonstrated a higher form of love than God Himself is capable of demonstrating.

Worshiping is different to sending salutations upon the Prophet PBUH. We do not ask the Prophet, the greatest of Allah's creation for anything ,we do not pray to him. We pray FOR him. You Christians worship Jesus Christ and ask him for help.

Like he said, when he will come back he will tell you to go away from him and break the cross.

[Nobody's Girl]

Thank you for your reply and heart felt words. Since you are a christian I would like to ask a question. Why can't there be salvation and redemption without atonement? Why would God go through the pain of becoming man and confusingly sacrifice himself and his "son" just to experience the human real. He is onmipotent isn't He? Why can't He forgive without blood being spilled? And why would He condemn all man kind for the sins of Adam and Eve. If someone asks me for forgiveness I wouldn't ask him/her to punch me in my face because someone has to be punished. These are just a few among many things which confuses me about christianity.

I am not here to argue with you. I like you aa a person. I am just sincerely trying to find fulfilling answers for my questions.

Oh yeah and why did Christ say to God "why have you forsaken me" to me this nullifies the whole dogma of christianity.

Peace be unto you.

[goodwill]

Thank you for your reply and heart felt words. Since you are a christian I would like to ask a question. Why can't there be salvation and redemption without atonement? Why would God go through the pain of becoming man and confusingly sacrifice himself and his "son" just to experience the human real. He is onmipotent isn't He? Why can't He forgive without blood being spilled? And why would He condemn all man kind for the sins of Adam and Eve. If someone asks me for forgiveness I wouldn't ask him/her to punch me in my face because someone has to be punished. These are just a few among many things which confuses me about christianity.

I am not here to argue with you. I like you aa a person. I am just sincerely trying to find fulfilling answers for my questions.

Oh yeah and why did Christ say to God "why have you forsaken me" to me this nullifies the whole dogma of christianity.

Peace be unto you.

Thank you for your reply and excellent questions. Christians ask them too!


On His part, God can and does forgive us apart from blood being spilled. He is not the obstacle to our salvation. Rather, He is kind and loving and holds no grudges against us His children. God looks upon you and me and everyone with favor and seeks only our good, simply because He Himself is altogether good. But while His heart toward us does not need to be changed, our hearts do need changing, and that change can only come about by our knowing His love toward us. For that reason, the omnipotent God, for whom nothing is impossible, took on human flesh. Jesus Christ came and dwelt among men, teaching, healing, and forgiving sins, showing what God is really like. Choosing to live among sinners was itself a kind of sacrifice. But, as you are probably aware, sinful men could not tolerate the Truth Incarnate among them and eventually put this perfect and sinless Man to a shameful and bloody death. In this way, Jesus Christ revealed the depths of sin in the human heart. But by His forbearance and free forgiveness, by His returning good for evil, He revealed God’s unselfish and unconditional love toward us all, a love so strong that even blasphemy and murder could not extinguish it. This supreme self-sacrifice is our assurance that God loves and forgives us. If we are aware of the dark and selfish thoughts of our own hearts, the awareness of the sin-condemning but peace-speaking blood of Jesus Christ is what our accusing consciences need to be at peace and to have abundant joy and hope in God.


On Adam and Eve, God does not hold us personally guilty for their sin, but we are all affected as a result of what happened there in the garden. The Bible portrays Jesus Christ as the new Adam whose obedience will undo the ill effects of the first Adam’s disobedience.


On the Lord’s cry from the cross, “Why have you forsaken Me?” much has been said and written and will continue to be said and written. I can refer you to a great essay on that very saying, if you are interested. For now I will say that the cry shows that Jesus Christ, as Man, knows what it is like to suffer as a poor human being, even to the point of feeling forsaken by God. It is a great mystery, of course. At the same time, the cry, “Why have you forsaken Me?” alludes to Psalm 22, written by David/Daud. Psalm 22 is quite striking as it foretells the crucifixion, centuries before that punishment was invented. Here are some excerpts:
My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning?
All who see me mock me;
they make mouths at me; they wag their heads;
“He trusts in the Lord; let him deliver him;
let him rescue him, for he delights in him!”
I am poured out like water,
and all my bones are out of joint;
they have pierced my hands and feet—
I can count all my bones—
they stare and gloat over me;
they divide my garments among them,
and for my clothing they cast lots.


But as if to anticipate the Resurrection, this Psalm, which begins so sorrowfully, ends on a note of triumph:
For he has not despised or abhorred
the affliction of the afflicted,
and he has not hidden his face from him,
but has heard, when he cried to him.
The afflicted shall eat and be satisfied;
those who seek him shall praise the Lord!
May your hearts live forever!
Posterity shall serve him;
it shall be told of the Lord to the coming generation;
they shall come and proclaim his righteousness to a people yet unborn,
that he has done it.


The Lord bless you.

[talibilm]

Many Histories can never be proved as 100 % correct because there are no eyewitness now but the historians make history by listening or collecting info from their sources and conclude what could have been the Most probable scenario. But a unbiased historian collects the info from many many sources and conflicting and against sources to find the truth. similarly I had arranged the following info , as doing it in a Jigsaw Puzzle from all sources ( Biblica , Wiki,The Noble Quran etc) especially from Bart Erhman , the 30 year experienced Bible Scholar which HONESTLY looks to me, like a historian concludes as the Most probable scenario that Paul was behind the reason for the Christians to break up into 41000 denominations unlike any other Religion.


My view of Paul from various sources shows Clearly that he was a Jewish student and was a Spy of the Jews to intrude into then the true monotheists followers of Jesus (pbuh), the Nazarenes as a Hypocrite to spread his new ideas of Shirk with his lies about his hallucinations about Jesus and making Jesus into a God. This was a Similar treachery that the Jews played Among Muslims with Ibn Sabah an Yemeni Jewish Who entered Islam and became a Hypocrite and started calling Caliph Ali as God creating Shia sect and was burnt alive with his group when he failed to repent.

The other proofs of my claims is the non availability of the manuscripts of the New Testament or Injeel (in comparison with the more 1700 years older Torah 's & Psalms David's manuscripts were still available then) unless untill arrival of Paul after two to three decades after Jesus 's vanishing.and the Manuscripts of Paul were the first few proofs of New testament as Per Bart Erhman as well and proves the Mischief the Jews had played through Paul by hiding or destroying the real Injeel. This happened when the disciples who fled to far away places (Italy) of Jesus came strong with their faith and crowds claiming Jesus was not crucified to the Shock & Shame for the Jews and Romans who thought they were exterminated after they fleed two decades ago after the so called crucifixtion of Jesus when the Jews claimed ( AS USUAL ) we have killed another false Prophet as they already did with some Prophets before (Noble Quran) So the Jews Arranged Paul just to reiterate the crucifixtion of Jesus was real with the acting of Paul and proving they really Killed Jesus just to save their face from shame together with the help of Roman power n influence.

The Group of Christians who followed the similar type of Christianity like the King . Negus of Abbyssinia , where those who escaped as far away as to Abbysinia from Europe and was far away from the TRINITY thoughts of main stream Pauli Christians. These were one of those pure Monotheist Christians those were found even at the times of the arrival of the Last Prophet and the last Book who did not believe in the Crucifiction of Jesus is what we found from the records of our books that are seen during the first Muslim Immigration to Abbysinia (now Ethopia). When Muslims were called up to the Kings court to verify the allegation that they had insulted Jesus , Jafar read surah Maryam to him and after hearing to the testimony of Jafar . The King Negus picked up a pebble and exclaimed with tears , that he and the Muslims do not defer on the opinion of the surah Maryam (which was read to him by the Muslims chief Jafar ra) more than this pebble he held in his hand.This incident is testimony that these were the closest Christians To Islam , No wonder Allah instructed through his Prophet to the muslims to travel here ( Abbysinia-Ethopia) than Najran ( head quarters of Christians) which also had Christians and much nearer than Abyssinia by more than 500 kms


Paul's mysterious death and not finding human bones in his grave is a proof that he had misunderstanding with Jewish hierarchy when Asian Jews took control and Paul was SILENCED for ever when he should have threat them to EXPOSE his false hallucinations secret of Jesus where he played the most PIVOTAL POINT IN TRINITY, is what i found from various sources of my analogy.

[popsthebuilder]

Khalid bro, Paul didn't just kill some Nazarenes - he was anchored mercenary paid to kill the nazarenes

the guy is as dodgy as sin

even the Jews as well as the companions of Jesus loathes Paul because he preached a completely different doctrine to what the Old Testament did - and Jesus pbuh observed the Torah laws while Paul did away with them.

this angered the children of Israel so much that the followers of Jesus and the children of Israel both attempted to stone Paul to death but the "Romans" protected him and told him "go preach to the Gentiles" instead coz they knew no better lol

the irony is - Jesus pbuh said "I have only come for the lost sheep of Israel" - not no Gentiles lol

Paul - one dajjal among many

Scimi

Scimi, couldn't the lost sheep of Israel be considered all the world given the writings regarding the tower of Babel and the promise made to Abraham?

Just wanted your opinion on this. Thank you.

peace

[Scimitar]

Scimi, couldn't the lost sheep of Israel be considered all the world given the writings regarding the tower of Babel and the promise made to Abraham?

Just wanted your opinion on this. Thank you.

peace

Hi Pops,

in context, Jesus pbuh was referring specifically to the Israelites of Jerusalem.

With regard to the tower of Babel. And Abraham. Abraham was not a Jew, nor a child of Israel. It's his grandson, Jacob pbuh, who is titled Israel. And those who followed him in pious unity and in worship of God, were thus known as the Children of Israel. When Jesus pbuh was asked by the scribe, "what is the greatest commandment?" he replied "Hear O Israel, your Lord, God, is One." and then he added "Love thy neighbour" in this regard, he was also a child of Israel as he too observed the same laws diligently as the Children of Israel had done so. His repetition of the two commandments were reflective of what values the children of Israel held most important above all others.

If Jesus had come for people who were not openly identifed as the Children of Israel, but were so - then where is this in the bible? Surely, Jesus pbuh, whom the Christians call one third of the trinity, would know who they were and would have preached to them, no? Yet he did not.

Instead, Paul took it on the word of the Roman powerhouse, to go "preach to the gentiles" - not lost tribes.

Hope this helps,

God bless

Scimi

[popsthebuilder]

Hi Pops,

in context, Jesus pbuh was referring specifically to the Israelites of Jerusalem.

With regard to the tower of Babel. And Abraham. Abraham was not a Jew, nor a child of Israel. It's his grandson, Jacob pbuh, who is titled Israel. And those who followed him in pious unity and in worship of God, were thus known as the Children of Israel. When Jesus pbuh was asked by the scribe, "what is the greatest commandment?" he replied "Hear O Israel, your Lord, God, is One." and then he added "Love thy neighbour" in this regard, he was also a child of Israel as he too observed the same laws diligently as the Children of Israel had done so. His repetition of the two commandments were reflective of what values the children of Israel held most important above all others.

If Jesus had come for people who were not openly identifed as the Children of Israel, but were so - then where is this in the bible? Surely, Jesus pbuh, whom the Christians call one third of the trinity, would know who they were and would have preached to them, no? Yet he did not.

Instead, Paul took it on the word of the Roman powerhouse, to go "preach to the gentiles" - not lost tribes.

Hope this helps,

God bless

Scimi

I'm simply saying that the lost tribes of Israel can be seen as the whole world. Jesus taught utter equity towards all, yet spoke against the Pharisees or knowing hypocrite as they where the ones misinterpreting the law and misdirecting others.

Hi Pops,

in context, Jesus pbuh was referring specifically to the Israelites of Jerusalem.

With regard to the tower of Babel. And Abraham. Abraham was not a Jew, nor a child of Israel. It's his grandson, Jacob pbuh, who is titled Israel. And those who followed him in pious unity and in worship of God, were thus known as the Children of Israel. When Jesus pbuh was asked by the scribe, "what is the greatest commandment?" he replied "Hear O Israel, your Lord, God, is One." and then he added "Love thy neighbour" in this regard, he was also a child of Israel as he too observed the same laws diligently as the Children of Israel had done so. His repetition of the two commandments were reflective of what values the children of Israel held most important above all others.

If Jesus had come for people who were not openly identifed as the Children of Israel, but were so - then where is this in the bible? Surely, Jesus pbuh, whom the Christians call one third of the trinity, would know who they were and would have preached to them, no? Yet he did not.

Instead, Paul took it on the word of the Roman powerhouse, to go "preach to the gentiles" - not lost tribes.

Hope this helps,

God bless

Scimi

I'm simply saying that the lost tribes of Israel can be seen as the whole world. Jesus taught utter equity towards all, yet spoke against the Pharisees or knowing hypocrite as they where the ones misinterpreting the law and misdirecting others.

Here; I don't generally post links, but I read quite a bit of it just now, and it it a lot to simply cut and paste.

http://www.tentmaker.org/Dew/Dew5/D5...ralProofs.html

peace friend

[Scimitar]

I'm simply saying that the lost tribes of Israel can be seen as the whole world. Jesus taught utter equity towards all, yet spoke against the Pharisees or knowing hypocrite as they where the ones misinterpreting the law and misdirecting others.

I'm simply saying that the lost tribes of Israel can be seen as the whole world. Jesus taught utter equity towards all, yet spoke against the Pharisees or knowing hypocrite as they where the ones misinterpreting the law and misdirecting others.

Here; I don't generally post links, but I read quite a bit of it just now, and it it a lot to simply cut and paste.

http://www.tentmaker.org/Dew/Dew5/D5...ralProofs.html

peace friend

Peace upon you also bro Pops :)

The children of Israel were a tribe from the loins of Jacob and those who followed him as a prophet pf God (pbuh). The rest of the known world was populated, from Africa to China.

Are the Africans and the Chinese also the lost sheep? How about the Aborigine? Or the Sami? Or the Lapp? Or... I can go on. Point i'm making is that, according to biblical teachings, I found the following really interesting:

Table of Nations:

Noah pbuh had three sons who were tasked with the repopulation of earth.

Ham, Shem and Japeth were their names, may God be pleased with them.

Ham settled the horn of Africa, Shem, the fertile crescent of the Middle East, and Japeth, The North Lands beyond the Caucuses, according to Judeo-Christian exegetes.

From Shem, come the line of Prophets and Messengers as you are taught in your scriptures, and so, there are still two thirds of the human populus which remain outside of the fold of revelation.

Let us now just focus on the Shemitic lineage, from whom we find the lineage of Prophets and Messengers.

From the Shemites, come many nations, and tribes, all identifying under one genetic marker of origin, tracing back to Shem. Nations such as the Akkadians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Phoenicians, Mesopotamians etc - from whom we derive the modern set of semitic races such as the Hebrews and the Arabs.

The above mentioned, are the limits of Semitic influence. And from these, the first set of revelations after the flood were given to Abraham pbuh, and from him descend the lineage of Prophethood through his seeds which God clarified for us in the Old Testament.

The argument that the lost tribes of Israel is the whole world - doesn't stand because one has to also factor in the other two sons of Noah pbuh, and their offspring, of which the Old Testament teaches that Japeth's lineage would be the most numerous of all... yet, from the line of Japeth, we get Magog - the enemy of God.

So no, the whole world cannot be Israel. Israel, in context are semitic in origin an followers of scripture - according to the OT.

And if one is not of that bloodline, one cannot be semite.

Hope this helps,

God bless,

Scimi

EDIT:

I think one distinction we must make here is the following:

One does not have to be a semite to believe in One God and the Prophets and Messengers (peace be upon them), hence one does not have to be a semite to come to belief.

The importance of the Semitic heritage is that the lineage of Prophets and Messengers descend from this line. I think this goes over the heads of most. The guradians of the Scriptures have always been Semites post flood.

Scimi

[popsthebuilder]

Peace upon you also bro Pops :)

The children of Israel were a tribe from the loins of Jacob and those who followed him as a prophet pf God (pbuh). The rest of the known world was populated, from Africa to China.

Are the Africans and the Chinese also the lost sheep? How about the Aborigine? Or the Sami? Or the Lapp? Or... I can go on. Point i'm making is that, according to biblical teachings, I found the following really interesting:

Table of Nations:

Noah pbuh had three sons who were tasked with the repopulation of earth.

Ham, Shem and Japeth were their names, may God be pleased with them.

Ham settled the horn of Africa, Shem, the fertile crescent of the Middle East, and Japeth, The North Lands beyond the Caucuses, according to Judeo-Christian exegetes.

From Shem, come the line of Prophets and Messengers as you are taught in your scriptures, and so, there are still two thirds of the human populus which remain outside of the fold of revelation.

Let us now just focus on the Shemitic lineage, from whom we find the lineage of Prophets and Messengers.

From the Shemites, come many nations, and tribes, all identifying under one genetic marker of origin, tracing back to Shem. Nations such as the Akkadians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Phoenicians, Mesopotamians etc - from whom we derive the modern set of semitic races such as the Hebrews and the Arabs.

The above mentioned, are the limits of Semitic influence. And from these, the first set of revelations after the flood were given to Abraham pbuh, and from him descend the lineage of Prophethood through his seeds which God clarified for us in the Old Testament.

The argument that the lost tribes of Israel is the whole world - doesn't stand because one has to also factor in the other two sons of Noah pbuh, and their offspring, of which the Old Testament teaches that Japeth's lineage would be the most numerous of all... yet, from the line of Japeth, we get Magog - the enemy of God.

So no, the whole world cannot be Israel. Israel, in context are semitic in origin an followers of scripture - according to the OT.

And if one is not of that bloodline, one cannot be semite.

Hope this helps,

God bless,

Scimi

EDIT:

I think one distinction we must make here is the following:

One does not have to be a semite to believe in One God and the Prophets and Messengers (peace be upon them), hence one does not have to be a semite to come to belief.

The importance of the Semitic heritage is that the lineage of Prophets and Messengers descend from this line. I think this goes over the heads of most. The guradians of the Scriptures have always been Semites post flood.

Scimi

So Noah wasn't descended from Abraham? Please excuse my ignorance. As you know; I am still somewhat new to some of the more historical aspects of our faith in one GOD.

Thank you for your patience and sincerity.

peace

[Scimitar]

So Noah wasn't descended from Abraham? Please excuse my ignorance. As you know; I am still somewhat new to some of the more historical aspects of our faith in one GOD.

Thank you for your patience and sincerity.

peace

This is correct, Abraham pbuh came after Noah pbuh and from the line of Noahs son, Shem pbuh.

Hence, in the modern vernacular, when we say Semite - or anti-Semite - we refer to those who are strictly Jewish due to the polarisation of the term after Nazi Germany. But more accurately, the term "Semite" refers to the descendents of Noahs son, Shem. This includes Abraham pbuh and his offspring, from whom God promised two great nations - the Arabs and the Israelites.

you for your patience and sincerity.

peace

You are most welcome bro Pops. If you have any other questions, I'd be happy to answer them if I am able God willing :)

What a lovely exchange between us, God bless. :)

Scimi

EDIT:

Paul was Roman, meaning he was from the line of Japeth, not Shem. There is a Greek legend which claims "Eipetos" is the father of the Greeks, and Eipitos is the Greco form of Japeth. So, the Romans, Greeks and even Spanish are some of the more westerly tribes descended from Japeth.

Hope this helps.

[goodwill]

Hi Pops,

in context, Jesus pbuh was referring specifically to the Israelites of Jerusalem.

With regard to the tower of Babel. And Abraham. Abraham was not a Jew, nor a child of Israel. It's his grandson, Jacob pbuh, who is titled Israel. And those who followed him in pious unity and in worship of God, were thus known as the Children of Israel. When Jesus pbuh was asked by the scribe, "what is the greatest commandment?" he replied "Hear O Israel, your Lord, God, is One." and then he added "Love thy neighbour" in this regard, he was also a child of Israel as he too observed the same laws diligently as the Children of Israel had done so. His repetition of the two commandments were reflective of what values the children of Israel held most important above all others.

If Jesus had come for people who were not openly identifed as the Children of Israel, but were so - then where is this in the bible? Surely, Jesus pbuh, whom the Christians call one third of the trinity, would know who they were and would have preached to them, no? Yet he did not.

Instead, Paul took it on the word of the Roman powerhouse, to go "preach to the gentiles" - not lost tribes.

Hope this helps,

God bless

Scimi

Good news: the Messiah was not for 1st-century A.D. Jews alone. God is generous, and the gift of His Messiah is for all. Even in the context where our Lord said He was not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, He showed that His generosity was not limited to the Jews, for He helped a Gentile mother and daughter after going to the area of Tyre and Sidon (Mark 7). The fact that the Messiah’s earthly ministry was primarily to the Jews does not cancel His larger mission to the world. The Bible is clear on this point.
The Hebrew prophets foretold, e.g., that God would give the nations to the Messiah, that the Messiah would be a light to the nations and salvation to the end of the earth, that the Messiah would sprinkle many nations, that the Gentiles would be called His people, that all peoples, nations, and languages would serve the Messiah (Psalm 2, Isaiah 49, Isaiah 52 & 53, Hosea 2, Daniel 7, see also Acts 13).
Accordingly, in the New Testament, the Messiah’s birth is a harbinger of peace on earth, Gentiles saw the Messiah’s star and came and worshipped Him, the devout Simeon described the Messiah’s mission as enlightening the Gentiles, the Messiah instructed His disciples to go into all the world and teach all nations (Matthew 2, Mark 16, Luke 1 & 2 & 24). The Messiah taught and healed among a multitude from Judea and from Tyre and Sidon (Luke 6), so the crowd perhaps included many Gentiles. The Messiah, who is the Word made flesh, enlightens everyone who comes into the world, and John the son of Zacharias, the Baptizer, identified the Messiah as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1). Our Lord revealed that He was the Messiah to the Samaritans, who then confessed that He is the Savior of the world (John 4). Our Lord commended a Roman centurion's faith in Him and said it exceeded the faith of the Jews (Matthew 8). Our Lord crossed the Sea of Galilee to the country of the swine-herding and thus possibly Gentile Gadarenes and helped a man there (Mark 5). Our Lord said that He had “other sheep” whom He would bring later (John 10). Gentiles therefore joined the Jews as God’s people, and the wall separating Jew and Gentile was definitively taken down (Acts 10 & 15, Romans 11, Ephesians 2, Colossians 3, 1 Peter 2).
So “rejoice, o ye nations,” “for God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son” (Deuteronomy 32, Psalm 117, Romans 15, John 3). Therefore a great multitude from all nations, kindreds, peoples, and tongues praise the Lamb of God (Revelation 7). As pops alluded, this is in keeping with God’s promise that all the families of the earth would be blessed in Abraham (Genesis 12). And God’s promise was also that Abraham’s seed would be called in Isaac—not Ishmael (Genesis 21). Accordingly, the Messiah is the seed of Abraham (Galatians 3) and descendent of Isaac (Matthew 1 & Luke 3).

[popsthebuilder]

I must admit; it seems that all creation or rather all man are indeed the lost sheep. Not that all are lost perhaps, but to say that the cradle of life is omitted from the promises of GOD, or other areas or people, for that matter, just doesn't seem accurate. Jesus taught equity, not favoratism. According to scripture in Christianity and other Abrahamic faiths including Islam, it seems the will of GOD, according to sacred writings, that all come into a harmonious accord with what is good and right and peaceable as a whole, not leaving any cast out who sincerely seek, and who, upon finding, abide.

This is only my opinion, but it is based off of what I have read and experienced.

peace

[Scimitar]

I wholly agree with you Pops

God bless,

Scimi

[Abdul Masih]

This is my attempt to explain the basic operation of the Trinity:

The Trinity is analogous to 'a ball rolling off a table.' Three segments can be distinguished. There is, the ball as it is rolling, the ball as it is falling, and the ball as it makes contact with the floor; the analogy consists of a roll, a fall, and a point of contact. God the Father is the roll, God the Son is the fall, and the Holy Ghost is the point of contact. And the kinetic energy of each segment represents each person's operation as God; they are each one unique. Filioque: Predominant and foremost is the ball as it is rolling — this is because the fall and the point of contact proceed from it; the fall and the point of contact happen within the context of the roll, hence 'a ball rolling (off a table.)' Likewise the Father is foremost, because the Son and the Holy Ghost proceed from him, they happen in context of him. (This answers the question of how God the Son could pray to God the Father, how God could pray to God.) Furthermore, from the Father proceeds the Son, and together the Holy Ghost, and thus, the Holy Ghost is preceded by the Father as well as the Son.

There is another aspect to this analogy, and that is the properties associated with each of the three segments. Of the roll there is the table itself, of the fall the atmosphere, that is resistance, and of the contact the floor; each in some way defines the segment in its operation. Likewise the Father is defined by his omnipresence, the Son by his flesh, and the Holy Ghost by his constitution of spirit.

Here are some statements of Jesus that can be made sense of using this analogy:

John 10: 39) "[...] the Father is in me and I am in the Father.”

John 14: 6–7) "[...] no one comes to the Father, but by me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also; henceforth you know him and have seen him.”

John 16: 7) "Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Counselor (Holy Ghost) will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you."

***

Paul did not invent the Trinity since it is rooted in the Old Testament; the prophet Isaiah predicts the coming of both the Son of God and the Holy Ghost, and a careful examination of his prophecies will reveal this. Take these four prophecies from the Book of Isaiah. Though they do not comprise the entirety of the prophecies concerning the persons of the Trinity they are perhaps the most straightforward and plain.

I have color coded each portion within each prophecy so that they should be examined in and of themselves. And each color coordinates a certain topic between prophecies.

PROPHECIES

Isaiah 2: 2–5) In days to come, the mountain of the LORD’s house shall be established as the highest mountain and raised above the hills. All nations shall stream toward it. Many peoples shall come and say: “Come, let us go up to the LORD’s mountain, to the house of the God of Jacob, that he may instruct us in his ways, and we may walk in his paths.” For from Zion shall go forth instruction, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. He shall judge between the nations, and set terms for many peoples. They shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; one nation shall not raise the sword against another, nor shall they train for war again. House of Jacob, come, let us walk in the light of the LORD!

Isaiah 11: 1–10) But a shoot shall sprout from the stump of Jesse, and from his roots a bud shall blossom. The spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him: a spirit of wisdom and of understanding, a spirit of counsel and of strength, a spirit of knowledge and of fear of the LORD, and his delight shall be the fear of the LORD. Not by appearance shall he judge, nor by hearsay shall he decide, but he shall judge the poor with justice, and decide fairly for the land’s afflicted. He shall strike the ruthless with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall slay the wicked. Justice shall be the band around his waist, and faithfulness a belt upon his hips. Then the wolf shall be a guest of the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat; the calf and the young lion shall browse together, with a little child to guide them. The cow and the bear shall graze, together their young shall lie down; the lion shall eat hay like the ox. The baby shall play by the viper’s den, and the child lay his hand on the adder’s lair. They shall not harm or destroy on all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be filled with knowledge of the LORD, as water covers the sea. On that day, the root of Jesse, set up as a signal for the peoples — him the nations will seek out; his dwelling shall be glorious.

Isaiah 66: 1–2, 42: 1) Thus says the LORD: The heavens are my throne, the earth, my footstool. What house can you build for me? Where is the place of my rest? My hand made all these things when all of them came to be —oracle of the LORD. This is the one whom I approve: the afflicted one, crushed in spirit, who trembles at my word. 42 Here is my servant whom I uphold, my chosen one with whom I am pleased. Upon him I have put my spirit; he shall bring forth justice to the nations.

***

COLOR COMPILATIONS WITH NOTES

• In days to come, the mountain of the LORD’s house shall be established as the highest mountain and raised above the hills. All nations shall stream toward it.
• On that day, the root of Jesse, set up as a signal for the peoples — him the nations will seek out; his dwelling shall be glorious.

• Many peoples shall come and say: “Come, let us go up to the LORD’s mountain, to the house of the God of Jacob, that he may instruct us in his ways, and we may walk in his paths.” (Note the plural, "paths"; in context it clearly implies and prophesies an entourage walking from place to place and not individuals metaphorically 'walking a path (singular),' hence the phrase prior. The phrase prior conveys God issuing instruction in merely a general sense. The leader of this entourage is referred to here as "the LORD's mountain" and is the Son of God.)
• House of Jacob, come, let us walk in the light of the LORD!
• But a shoot shall sprout from the stump of Jesse, and from his roots a bud shall blossom. (Again, this passage is a prophecy about the prophet that is the leader of that entourage in Isaiah 2: 2–5. Here he is referred to as "the stump of Jesse". Further in Isaiah 11 is the prophecy that "[...] — him the nations will seek out.". And for his significance he is referred to here as a 'blossoming bud,' a term conveying beauty and/or life.)

• For from Zion shall go forth instruction, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. He shall judge between the nations, and set terms for many peoples. (Again with a prophecy, of nations in some way surrounding this prophet, the Son of God.)
• Not by appearance shall he judge, nor by hearsay shall he decide, but he shall judge the poor with justice, and decide fairly for the land’s afflicted. He shall strike the ruthless with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall slay the wicked. Justice shall be the band around his waist, and faithfulness a belt upon his hips. (This is clearly in the context of a prophet issuing a word to the people, and who himself is in a sense THE Word.)

• They shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; one nation shall not raise the sword against another, nor shall they train for war again. (The word of this prophet who is the"LORD's mountain" and the "stump of Jesse" and the Son of God does not at all condone state-sponsored violence under any circumstance, because the adoption of his message facilitates an absolute adherence to peace — remember that the sword begets the sword. The state embodies the principles and determination of the people.)
• Then the wolf shall be a guest of the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat; the calf and the young lion shall browse together, with a little child to guide them. The cow and the bear shall graze, together their young shall lie down; the lion shall eat hay like the ox. The baby shall play by the viper’s den, and the child lay his hand on the adder’s lair. They shall not harm or destroy on all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be filled with knowledge of the LORD, as water covers the sea.

• The spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him: a spirit of wisdom and of understanding, a spirit of counsel and of strength, a spirit of knowledge and of fear of the LORD, and his delight shall be the fear of the LORD. (Of major significance is the mention of a spirit. The mere mention of there being a spirit lends credence to the assertion that the concept of the Trinity can be found in the Old Testament, because a person that is a spirit is a component of the triune god.)
• Thus says the LORD: The heavens are my throne, the earth, my footstool. What house can you build for me? Where is the place of my rest? My hand made all these things when all of them came to be —oracle of the LORD. This is the one whom I approve: the afflicted one, crushed in spirit, who trembles at my word. 42 Here is my servant whom I uphold, my chosen one with whom I am pleased. Upon him I have put my spirit; he shall bring forth justice to the nations. (Because this prophet is "crushed in spirit" God has said, "Upon him I have put my spirit", one of wisdom, understanding, counsel, strength, knowledge, and fear of the LORD. Also, notice the preceding passage, that it is made clear God's omnipotence and omnipresence before stating of whom he approves; the context would suggest that clarification needed to be made or else it might be forgotten, God's omnipotence and omnipresence.)

***

CONCLUSION

After a study of these prophecies peruse the prophecy of Isaiah 12. Notice that it more or less sums up the core teachings behind the whole of Isaiah's prophecies, as well as the Psalms. And notice the end of it, the phrase, "[...] great in your midst is the Holy One of Israel!" no doubt a reference to the prophesied prophet and god-man.

Isaiah 12) On that day, you will say: I give you thanks, O LORD; though you have been angry with me, your anger has abated, and you have consoled me. God indeed is my salvation; I am confident and unafraid. For the LORD is my strength and my might, and he has been my salvation. With joy you will draw water from the fountains of salvation, and you will say on that day: give thanks to the LORD, acclaim his name; among the nations make known his deeds, proclaim how exalted is his name. Sing praise to the LORD for he has done glorious things; let this be known throughout all the earth. Shout with exultation, City of Zion, for great in your midst is the Holy One of Israel!

And here are a few other passages to go with the phrase, "[...] great in your midst is the Holy One of Israel!"

Isaiah 65: 1) I was ready to be sought by those who did not ask for me; I was ready to be found by those who did not seek me. I said, “Here am I, here am I,” to a nation that did not call on my name."

Isaiah 52: 6) "Therefore my people shall know my name; therefore in that day they shall know that it is I who speak; here am I.”

Isaiah 58: 9) "Then you shall call, and the Lord will answer; you shall cry, and he will say, Here I am."


FINAL REMARKS

Isaiah no doubt prophesies the coming of a man who will claim to be God, that is for certain. What remains to be the question is whether you believe Isaiah to be a true prophet? The Quran makes no mention of him, and perhaps this is why, because these prophecies are Islamically not deemed valid.

[goodwill]

PROPHECIES

Isaiah 2: 2–5) In days to come, the mountain of the LORD’s house shall be established as the highest mountain and raised above the hills. All nations shall stream toward it. Many peoples shall come and say: “Come, let us go up to the LORD’s mountain, to the house of the God of Jacob, that he may instruct us in his ways, and we may walk in his paths.” For from Zion shall go forth instruction, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. He shall judge between the nations, and set terms for many peoples. They shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; one nation shall not raise the sword against another, nor shall they train for war again. House of Jacob, come, let us walk in the light of the LORD!

Isaiah 11: 1–10) But a shoot shall sprout from the stump of Jesse, and from his roots a bud shall blossom. The spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him: a spirit of wisdom and of understanding, a spirit of counsel and of strength, a spirit of knowledge and of fear of the LORD, and his delight shall be the fear of the LORD. Not by appearance shall he judge, nor by hearsay shall he decide, but he shall judge the poor with justice, and decide fairly for the land’s afflicted. He shall strike the ruthless with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall slay the wicked. Justice shall be the band around his waist, and faithfulness a belt upon his hips. Then the wolf shall be a guest of the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat; the calf and the young lion shall browse together, with a little child to guide them. The cow and the bear shall graze, together their young shall lie down; the lion shall eat hay like the ox. The baby shall play by the viper’s den, and the child lay his hand on the adder’s lair. They shall not harm or destroy on all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be filled with knowledge of the LORD, as water covers the sea. On that day, the root of Jesse, set up as a signal for the peoples — him the nations will seek out; his dwelling shall be glorious.

Isaiah 66: 1–2, 42: 1) Thus says the LORD: The heavens are my throne, the earth, my footstool. What house can you build for me? Where is the place of my rest? My hand made all these things when all of them came to be —oracle of the LORD. This is the one whom I approve: the afflicted one, crushed in spirit, who trembles at my word. 42 Here is my servant whom I uphold, my chosen one with whom I am pleased. Upon him I have put my spirit; he shall bring forth justice to the nations.

Those are powerful prophecies from Holy Writ, Abdul Mesih. I would like to borrow some of your references as they relate to the question of whether the Messiah’s mission extended to the Gentiles in addition to the Jews. Isaiah 2 prophesies that many peoples would listen to instruction coming from Jerusalem. Jerusalem was the site from which the Messiah instructed the apostles to begin their mission to the world (Luke 24). Isaiah 11 prophesies that the Messiah would be a descendent, not only of Abraham and Isaac, but more specifically a descendent of Jesse, who was King David’s father; and this Messiah would be sought by the nations, a reference to non-Jews or Gentiles. And Isaiah 66 prophesies that the Messiah would bring justice to the nations, and not merely to the Jews.

[Scimitar]

Good news: the Messiah was not for 1st-century A.D. Jews alone. God is generous, and the gift of His Messiah is for all. Even in the context where our Lord said He was not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, He showed that His generosity was not limited to the Jews, for He helped a Gentile mother and daughter after going to the area of Tyre and Sidon (Mark 7).

DId he preach to them? I think not.

So, helping a gentile is not the same as preaching to them the world of God is it? I can help anyone. But I don't preach to Everyone.

Your point? Jesus didn;t preach to the Gentiles. FInd me one instance where he did. It's not in the bible.

The fact that the Messiah’s earthly ministry was primarily to the Jews does not cancel His larger mission to the world. The Bible is clear on this point.
The Hebrew prophets foretold, e.g., that God would give the nations to the Messiah, that the Messiah would be a light to the nations and salvation to the end of the earth, that the Messiah would sprinkle many nations, that the Gentiles would be called His people, that all peoples, nations, and languages would serve the Messiah (Psalm 2, Isaiah 49, Isaiah 52 & 53, Hosea 2, Daniel 7, see also Acts 13).
Accordingly, in the New Testament, the Messiah’s birth is a harbinger of peace on earth, Gentiles saw the Messiah’s star and came and worshipped Him, the devout Simeon described the Messiah’s mission as enlightening the Gentiles, the Messiah instructed His disciples to go into all the world and teach all nations (Matthew 2, Mark 16, Luke 1 & 2 & 24). The Messiah taught and healed among a multitude from Judea and from Tyre and Sidon (Luke 6), so the crowd perhaps included many Gentiles. The Messiah, who is the Word made flesh, enlightens everyone who comes into the world, and John the son of Zacharias, the Baptizer, identified the Messiah as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1). Our Lord revealed that He was the Messiah to the Samaritans, who then confessed that He is the Savior of the world (John 4). Our Lord commended a Roman centurion's faith in Him and said it exceeded the faith of the Jews (Matthew 8). Our Lord crossed the Sea of Galilee to the country of the swine-herding and thus possibly Gentile Gadarenes and helped a man there (Mark 5). Our Lord said that He had “other sheep” whom He would bring later (John 10). Gentiles therefore joined the Jews as God’s people, and the wall separating Jew and Gentile was definitively taken down (Acts 10 & 15, Romans 11, Ephesians 2, Colossians 3, 1 Peter 2).
So “rejoice, o ye nations,” “for God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son” (Deuteronomy 32, Psalm 117, Romans 15, John 3). Therefore a great multitude from all nations, kindreds, peoples, and tongues praise the Lamb of God (Revelation 7). As pops alluded, this is in keeping with God’s promise that all the families of the earth would be blessed in Abraham (Genesis 12). And God’s promise was also that Abraham’s seed would be called in Isaac—not Ishmael (Genesis 21). Accordingly, the Messiah is the seed of Abraham (Galatians 3) and descendent of Isaac (Matthew 1 & Luke 3).

Yet, Jesus pbuh had no territory on ths earth he could lay claim to, so in this instance, either the bible is wrong, or Jesus is - when he said "My kingdom is not of this world" - which is it?

Apparently your bible claims Jesus bought peace to the earth, yet Jesus himself said "I come not with peace but with a sword"...

Cake or pie?

Please explain.

Scimi

[goodwill]

DId he preach to them? I think not.

So, helping a gentile is not the same as preaching to them the world of God is it? I can help anyone. But I don't preach to Everyone.

Your point? Jesus didn;t preach to the Gentiles. FInd me one instance where he did. It's not in the bible.




Yet, Jesus pbuh had no territory on ths earth he could lay claim to, so in this instance, either the bible is wrong, or Jesus is - when he said "My kingdom is not of this world" - which is it?

Apparently your bible claims Jesus bought peace to the earth, yet Jesus himself said "I come not with peace but with a sword"...

Cake or pie?

Please explain.

Scimi

Scimi, look at Luke 6, which I referenced earlier and which shows the Messiah both teaching and healing people, some of whom were from Tyre and Sidon. Then turn to Matthew 15 and see what kind of people lived in the region of Tyre and Sidon. You will see that Gentiles inhabited that region. Anyway, it would not matter if Jesus never preached to a crowd of Gentiles. He assigned that job to His disciples when He sent them into “all the world.” He told them, “He who hears you hears Me,” so it is just the same as if Jesus Himself were preaching. The book of Acts gives several examples of the Messiah preaching to the Gentiles through His representatives, the apostles.
Now if you look carefully at the other references given earlier, you will see that the Messiah was an object of faith for the Gentiles too, even during His earthly ministry. Those two aspects of our Lord’s ministry, teaching and healing, went together. The healings confirmed His teachings. And those who were healed received healing because of their faith, which plainly means that somehow they were taught to believe in the Messiah before they were healed. Thus our Lord commended the faith of the Gentile centurion and the faith of the Gentile mother, whose loved ones received healing through their great faith in the Messiah. No one acquires great faith without first being taught. At the same time, our Lord’s healings themselves teach valuable lessons about faith in Him. That’s why so many of His miracles are recorded in the Bible. They are not recorded just to impress. That would be a small thing. Our Lord’s miracles were performed for our learning and benefit.
Meanwhile, it's clear why modern-day Muslims are desperate to reduce Jesus to just a prophet of the Jews. It says a lot about the weakness of your position that you must resort to such desperate arguments. Can a cause be good if it can be defended only by resorting to lousy arguments?
On the Messiah’s kingdom, I’m not sure what your point was. The Messiah inherits the people of all nations by bringing them into His eternal kingdom.
The Messiah brings peace on earth in one sense, and a sword and conflict in another sense. It’s not cake or pie. It’s both cake and pie.
All the best, bro.

[Cherub786]

But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (Matthew Ch. 15 V. 24)

And when Jesus, the son of Mary, said, "O children of Israel, indeed I am the Messenger of Allah to you" (Suhuf-i-Mutahhara; 61 : 6 )

The promised Messiah Jesus (peace be upon him) was an Israelite Prophet, and although he may have healed sick Gentiles, his ministry was restricted to the Israelites only.

He also instructed his Israelite disciples to avoid ministering to the Gentiles:

These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not (Matthew; Ch. 10 V. 5 )

[goodwill]

But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (Matthew Ch. 15 V. 24)

And when Jesus, the son of Mary, said, "O children of Israel, indeed I am the Messenger of Allah to you" (Suhuf-i-Mutahhara; 61 : 6 )

The promised Messiah Jesus (peace be upon him) was an Israelite Prophet, and although he may have healed sick Gentiles, his ministry was restricted to the Israelites only.

He also instructed his Israelite disciples to avoid ministering to the Gentiles:

These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not (Matthew; Ch. 10 V. 5 )

Cherub786, please see the posts by Abdul Masih and me addressing these points earlier in this thread. We went into some detail.
Also, I'm glad you quoted the part about not going among the Samaritans. To see that that this instruction in Matthew 10 was provisional and not an absolute limiting of ministry to the Jews alone, you should read John 4 where Jesus went and taught in Samaria, with the result that many Samaritans confessed Jesus as "Savior of the world."

[Cherub786]

Cherub786, please see the posts by Abdul Masih and me addressing these points earlier in this thread. We went into some detail.
Also, I'm glad you quoted the part about not going among the Samaritans. To see that that this instruction in Matthew 10 was provisional and not an absolute limiting of ministry to the Jews alone, you should read John 4 where Jesus went and taught in Samaria, with the result that many Samaritans confessed Jesus as "Savior of the world."

Hmm, it seems you are a Bible fundamentalist when you quote from the Gospel of John.
Have you ever considered modern and scholarly New Testament criticism which explains the motivations behind why various Gospel accounts were written?
I learnt a lot about that subject from a very informative and stimulating series of lectures from Yale University online, you can check it out here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtQ2TS1CiDY
There are many things to learn from this vast scholarly study including about the veracity of Gospel of John. You can learn about how scholars determine which parts of the New Testament were likely said and done by Jesus through multiple corroboration and other scholarly methods.

Overall, the scholarly concensus is that Jesus was a Jewish apocalyptic prophet considering the historical context of his ministry. So it makes perfect sense why he restricted his ministry to the house of Israel. If you actually believe that Jesus claimed to be divine and taught people that he came to die for the sins of mankind, well I respect your belief as a fellow human being, but I think if you take the time to study the historical Jesus movement from scholarly objective perspective you will learn many interesting and fascinating things which you probably never considered before.

[goodwill]

Hmm, it seems you are a Bible fundamentalist when you quote from the Gospel of John.
Have you ever considered modern and scholarly New Testament criticism which explains the motivations behind why various Gospel accounts were written?
I learnt a lot about that subject from a very informative and stimulating series of lectures from Yale University online, you can check it out here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtQ2TS1CiDY
There are many things to learn from this vast scholarly study including about the veracity of Gospel of John. You can learn about how scholars determine which parts of the New Testament were likely said and done by Jesus through multiple corroboration and other scholarly methods.

Overall, the scholarly concensus is that Jesus was a Jewish apocalyptic prophet considering the historical context of his ministry. So it makes perfect sense why he restricted his ministry to the house of Israel. If you actually believe that Jesus claimed to be divine and taught people that he came to die for the sins of mankind, well I respect your belief as a fellow human being, but I think if you take the time to study the historical Jesus movement from scholarly objective perspective you will learn many interesting and fascinating things which you probably never considered before.

This raises a good point. The Lord Jesus did have a special “apocalyptic” message for the Jews: the fig tree was about to be cut down (Luke 13), and Jerusalem, which largely rejected the Messiah, would undergo destruction within a generation (Matthew 24). Historically, our Lord's prediction was fulfilled in A.D. 70. The Jewish rejection of the Messiah is connected to the inclusion of the Gentiles in the Church. Our Lord taught that the privilege of His kingdom was to be taken from the Jews and given to others (Matthew 21). Our Lord speaks of this also in the context, referred to earlier, where He commended a Gentile’s faith in Him. Jesus predicted that many others would sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven while “the children of the kingdom” would be cast out (Matthew 8). The apostle Paul explained, “Through their fall, salvation is come unto the Gentiles” (Romans 11).


No one is neutral when it comes to Jesus, so it’s hard to say to what extent scholarly opinions are objective. The Messiah is the great stone of stumbling and rock of offense (Isaiah 8, Romans 9), so it would be naive to accept scholarly conjectures uncritically. In any case, truth is not determined by consensus. But as long as it carries some weight with you, the “scholarly consensus,” both liberal and conservative, is that Jesus of Nazareth died by crucifixion. Do you agree with that?

[Cherub786]

This raises a good point. The Lord Jesus did have a special “apocalyptic” message for the Jews: the fig tree was about to be cut down (Luke 13), and Jerusalem, which largely rejected the Messiah, would undergo destruction within a generation (Matthew 24). Historically, our Lord's prediction was fulfilled in A.D. 70. The Jewish rejection of the Messiah is connected to the inclusion of the Gentiles in the Church. Our Lord taught that the privilege of His kingdom was to be taken from the Jews and given to others (Matthew 21). Our Lord speaks of this also in the context, referred to earlier, where He commended a Gentile’s faith in Him. Jesus predicted that many others would sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven while “the children of the kingdom” would be cast out (Matthew 8). The apostle Paul explained, “Through their fall, salvation is come unto the Gentiles” (Romans 11).


No one is neutral when it comes to Jesus, so it’s hard to say to what extent scholarly opinions are objective. The Messiah is the great stone of stumbling and rock of offense (Isaiah 8, Romans 9), so it would be naive to accept scholarly conjectures uncritically. In any case, truth is not determined by consensus. But as long as it carries some weight with you, the “scholarly consensus,” both liberal and conservative, is that Jesus of Nazareth died by crucifixion. Do you agree with that?

I believe you are referring to the idea of “replacement theology” or supersessionism, which is that the Gentile Church, because it was more accepting of Jesus, replaces the House of Israel.
But there are some critical problems with this idea from a historical perspective. Most (if not all) secular scholars would say this idea was evolved by the early Christian community when they lost hope of converting the Jews en masse to the idea that Jesus was their Messiah.
For me, this is like the idea of making up theology as you go along in light of the practical realities you face. You first teach that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah come to establish a Messianic kingdom (which is what the Jews are originally expecting). But the Jews remain unconvinced for various reasons, and you realize if you tweak a few things you will get a greater acceptance from the Gentiles. Suddenly a whole new world opens up to you with the exciting idea that the Gentiles can give new life to the movement. And the rest is history.
Now the problem is that the entire concept of the Messiah has been changed as a result of the need to modify a religious movement for Gentile consumption. The Hebrew Bible and Jewish tradition simply teaches that the Messiah will establish a strong Jewish kingdom and deliver the House of Israel from foreign subjugation. How could the Gentiles be asked to believe this message when they have the upper hand and the Jews are a conquered people? So of course you have to tweak a bit of theology, it makes perfect sense. But my point is that the Messianic concept intimately related to the Jewish national aspirations to be free from foreign subjugation, so by its very nature it cannot be preached as a “gospel” to the Gentiles. That is why it makes perfect sense to me that the historical Jesus of Nazareth, who know doubt saw himself as the Davidic Messiah, was not interested in focusing his ministry to the Gentiles.

As for your second question on the death of Jesus by crucifixion, I actually started a new thread on this very topic today and invite you to participate in that discussion there.

https://www.islamicboard.com/general...cal-jesus.html

[goodwill]

I believe you are referring to the idea of “replacement theology” or supersessionism, which is that the Gentile Church, because it was more accepting of Jesus, replaces the House of Israel.
But there are some critical problems with this idea from a historical perspective. Most (if not all) secular scholars would say this idea was evolved by the early Christian community when they lost hope of converting the Jews en masse to the idea that Jesus was their Messiah.
For me, this is like the idea of making up theology as you go along in light of the practical realities you face. You first teach that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah come to establish a Messianic kingdom (which is what the Jews are originally expecting). But the Jews remain unconvinced for various reasons, and you realize if you tweak a few things you will get a greater acceptance from the Gentiles. Suddenly a whole new world opens up to you with the exciting idea that the Gentiles can give new life to the movement. And the rest is history.
Now the problem is that the entire concept of the Messiah has been changed as a result of the need to modify a religious movement for Gentile consumption. The Hebrew Bible and Jewish tradition simply teaches that the Messiah will establish a strong Jewish kingdom and deliver the House of Israel from foreign subjugation. How could the Gentiles be asked to believe this message when they have the upper hand and the Jews are a conquered people? So of course you have to tweak a bit of theology, it makes perfect sense. But my point is that the Messianic concept intimately related to the Jewish national aspirations to be free from foreign subjugation, so by its very nature it cannot be preached as a “gospel” to the Gentiles. That is why it makes perfect sense to me that the historical Jesus of Nazareth, who know doubt saw himself as the Davidic Messiah, was not interested in focusing his ministry to the Gentiles.

As for your second question on the death of Jesus by crucifixion, I actually started a new thread on this very topic today and invite you to participate in that discussion there.

https://www.islamicboard.com/general...cal-jesus.html

You underestimate the comprehensiveness of the Messianic prophecies. The ancient Hebrew prophets predicted not only the Messiah’s advent, suffering, death, resurrection, and mission to the world, but also His rejection by the Jews. “Did ye never read in the Scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?” (Psalm 118, Matthew 21).

[Cherub786]

You underestimate the comprehensiveness of the Messianic prophecies. The ancient Hebrew prophets predicted not only the Messiah’s advent, suffering, death, resurrection, and mission to the world, but also His rejection by the Jews. “Did ye never read in the Scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?” (Psalm 118, Matthew 21).

I don’t mean to play devil’s advocate, but the fact of the matter is that the Jews are right in arguing that most of those passages that the Christians quote from the Book of Psalms and other books of the Hebrew Bible are not even Messianic prophecies. I’ve actually heard many of Rabbi Michael Skobac’s (from Jews for Judaism) lectures and audio recordings where he absolutely demolishes the Christian arguments that the death and resurrection of the Messiah have been predicted in the Old Testament.
Not only every Jew, but every secular historian and scholar will tell you that there was never this theology that the Messiah will come to suffer and die. The accounts that Christians quote about the “Suffering servant” from Isaiah 53, for example, if read in context are not actually talking about a person, let alone the Messiah. It is an allegory for the House of Israel. You have to read these Books in context, both textual and historical.
Additionally you have another problem which is that the secular scholarly consensus is that the authors of the New Testament “gospels” many times fabricated things about Jesus in order to plug him into the Messianic prophecies. For example, being born in Bethlehem (when in fact Jesus was a Nazarene). No historian agrees with the account of Herod ordering a census and people had to return to their original hometowns. It is simply a fabrication against history that such a thing ever happened.

[goodwill]

I don’t mean to play devil’s advocate, but the fact of the matter is that the Jews are right in arguing that most of those passages that the Christians quote from the Book of Psalms and other books of the Hebrew Bible are not even Messianic prophecies. I’ve actually heard many of Rabbi Michael Skobac’s (from Jews for Judaism) lectures and audio recordings where he absolutely demolishes the Christian arguments that the death and resurrection of the Messiah have been predicted in the Old Testament.
Not only every Jew, but every secular historian and scholar will tell you that there was never this theology that the Messiah will come to suffer and die. The accounts that Christians quote about the “Suffering servant” from Isaiah 53, for example, if read in context are not actually talking about a person, let alone the Messiah. It is an allegory for the House of Israel. You have to read these Books in context, both textual and historical.
Additionally you have another problem which is that the secular scholarly consensus is that the authors of the New Testament “gospels” many times fabricated things about Jesus in order to plug him into the Messianic prophecies. For example, being born in Bethlehem (when in fact Jesus was a Nazarene). No historian agrees with the account of Herod ordering a census and people had to return to their original hometowns. It is simply a fabrication against history that such a thing ever happened.

If you read Isaiah 52 & 53, you will find that the passage repeatedly refers to the experience of a particular individual, not that of a plurality of persons. Saying that it refers to the whole nation is simply a gratuitous assertion and forced interpretation. Besides, ancient Jews also understood this passage to be Messianic, as for example, the second-century A. D. Targum Jonathan, which understood Isaiah 52:13 to say, “Behold, My servant the Messiah shall prosper…” and which referred to “the kingdom of their Messiah” in its paraphrase of Isaiah 53:10. Also, in order to be an acceptable “offering for sin” (53:10) under the Mosaic Law, the offering had to be without blemish. But the nation of Israel was not without moral blemish and thus was not an acceptable offering. However, Jesus the Messiah was sinless and therefore perfectly acceptable as an offering for sin, the "Lamb of God," according to John son of Zacharias, the Baptizer. The “seed” also mentioned verse 10 need not be literal, physical progeny, for those who are Christ’s are counted as “the seed of Abraham,” whatever their ethnic descent may be (Galatians 3:29). In Christianity, adoption is not forbidden. But it does not surprise me that “Jews for Judaism” reject the Christian interpretation. Meanwhile, Jews for Jesus accept and argue for the Christian interpretation, and this is not a merely a recent phenomenon. Alfred Edersheim, e.g., converted from Judaism to Christianity in the 19th century and wrote a well-known classic, now available in the public domain, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah.
You said that according to the New Testament Herod ordered a census. Where in the New Testament does it say Herod did that?

[Cherub786]

If you read Isaiah 52 & 53, you will find that the passage repeatedly refers to the experience of a particular individual, not that of a plurality of persons. Saying that it refers to the whole nation is simply a gratuitous assertion and forced interpretation.Besides, ancient Jews also understood this passage to be Messianic, as for example, the second-century A. D. Targum Jonathan, which understood Isaiah 52:13 to say, “Behold, My servant the Messiah shall prosper…” and which referred to “the kingdom of their Messiah” in its paraphrase of Isaiah 53:10. Also, in order to be an acceptable “offering for sin” (53:10) under the Mosaic Law, the offering had to be without blemish. But the nation of Israel was not without moral blemish and thus was not an acceptable offering. However, Jesus the Messiah was sinless and therefore perfectly acceptable as an offering for sin, the "Lamb of God," according to John son of Zacharias, the Baptizer. The “seed” also mentioned verse 10 need not be literal, physical progeny, for those who are Christ’s are counted as “the seed of Abraham,” whatever their ethnic descent may be (Galatians 3:29). In Christianity, adoption is not forbidden. But it does not surprise me that “Jews for Judaism” reject the Christian interpretation. Meanwhile, Jews for Jesus accept and argue for the Christian interpretation, and this is not a merely a recent phenomenon. Alfred Edersheim, e.g., converted from Judaism to Christianity in the 19th century and wrote a well-known classic, now available in the public domain, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah.
You said that according to the New Testament Herod ordered a census. Where in the New Testament does it say Herod did that?

You are starting from chapter 52 or 53. The problem is in order to identify the “suffering servant” you have to be acquainted with the book of Isaiah from chapter 1. These texts have a theme which begin from the very beginning. Quoting a passage from a book without understanding the underline theme or style of a book just doesn’t work.
You claim that the passage is referring to a single individual and cannot refer to the plurality of Israel. But this is wrong:
Isaiah 41:8-9 “But you, O Israel, My servant, Jacob, you whom I have chosen, offspring of Abraham who loved Me…and to whom I shall say: ‘You are my servant’ – I have chosen you and not rejected you.”1
Isaiah 44:1 “But hear now Jacob, My servant, and Israel whom I have chosen!”2
Isaiah 44: 21 “Remember these things, Jacob and Israel, for you are My servant: I fashioned you to be My servant: Israel do not forget Me!”
Isaiah 45:4 “..for the sake of My servant Jacob and Israel, My chosen one: I have proclaimed you by name…”
Isaiah 48:20 “…say, ‘Hashem (God) has redeemed His servant Jacob.”
Isaiah 49:3 “…You are my servant, Israel, in whom I take glory.”
For a Christian who reads the Bible I’m surprised you are not aware of how it refers to the entire nation of Israel repeatedly as a single person, or with singular pronouns. But now that we have established from the Book of Isaiah that “servant” in the singular is a reference to Israel, as it is from Isaiah 52:13.
Furthermore, if we were to assume for the sake of argument that Isaiah 52-53 is speaking of a single individual who is to come, it still does not prove Jesus. You can try to “plug” in Jesus into Isaiah 52-53, but you cannot derive him from it. Consider the following:
Isaiah 52:15 says the kings will shut their mouths at him
When did this ever happen in the case of Jesus? The Jewish Study Bible says: “the servant is probably the nation Israel, and the nations are stunned that such an insignificant and lowly group turns out to have been so important to the divine plan.” (p. 891)
Isaiah 53:2 says he is unattractive. Was Jesus known for being physically unattractive? On the contrary, he is universally depicted as being good looking by Christians themselves.
Isaiah 53:3 says he is despised and rejected by men and a man of sorrows.
Jesus was not known as being a man of sorrows. If you say he suffered on the cross, then this is not something unique to Jesus, practically everyone suffers sometime in their life. But this verse is describing someone who will be known for suffering and be despised.
Isaiah 53:7 is interesting, because some Gospel accounts say Jesus was silent at his trial, but others mention an entire dialogue between him and those who put him on trial, including his trial before Pilate.
Isaiah 53:10 is your biggest problem. You claim that the seed that is mentioned is not literal, and you quoted Galatians which is circular reasoning. Why should the Jews believe seed is not literal just because Galatians says it?
The fact of the matter is that you are don’t know Hebrew and this is the biggest problem with Christians. They don’t understand that the word Zera can never be used for children in a figurative sense.
If it is so easy to make up convenient interpretations and manipulate the text to make it mean what you want it to mean, then practically anyone can claim that he is the “suffering servant”. Even I can claim I am the suffering servant of Isaiah if it is that easy to play around with the words and the context.
As for your claim that Targum identified the servant with the Messiah, here’s what the Jewish Study Bible has to say: “Targum and various midrashim identify the servant as the Messiah, but this suggestion is unlikely, since nowhere else does Deutero-Isaiah refer to the Messiah” (p. 891).
Finally, please pardon me for my mistake of saying Herod ordered the census. What I meant is that the New Testament claims the census took place during the reign of King Herod (which is factually incorrect).
However my point is that the secular scholars do not consider the nativity story as historically accurate, specifically about the census ordering people to return to their ancestral villages. That is simply implausible: “Sanders considers Luke's census, for which everyone returned to their ancestral home, not historically credible, as this was contrary to Roman practice; they would not have uprooted everyone from their homes and farms in the Empire by forcing them to return to their ancestral cities. Moreover, people were not able to trace their own lineages back 42 generations.” (Sanders, E. P. The historical figure of Jesus. Penguin, 1993. Sanders discusses both birth narratives in detail, contrasts them, and judges them not historical on pp. 85–88)
One sees a recurring theme of the Gospel writers making up legendary accounts which are historically inaccurate and implausible in order to convince the reader that Jesus fulfilled various Messianic prophecies. This is definitely the conclusion of secular scholars, I’ve yet to see Christians give a compelling reply to it.

[goodwill]

You are starting from chapter 52 or 53. The problem is in order to identify the “suffering servant” you have to be acquainted with the book of Isaiah from chapter 1. These texts have a theme which begin from the very beginning. Quoting a passage from a book without understanding the underline theme or style of a book just doesn’t work.
You claim that the passage is referring to a single individual and cannot refer to the plurality of Israel. But this is wrong:
Isaiah 41:8-9 “But you, O Israel, My servant, Jacob, you whom I have chosen, offspring of Abraham who loved Me…and to whom I shall say: ‘You are my servant’ – I have chosen you and not rejected you.”1
Isaiah 44:1 “But hear now Jacob, My servant, and Israel whom I have chosen!”2
Isaiah 44: 21 “Remember these things, Jacob and Israel, for you are My servant: I fashioned you to be My servant: Israel do not forget Me!”
Isaiah 45:4 “..for the sake of My servant Jacob and Israel, My chosen one: I have proclaimed you by name…”
Isaiah 48:20 “…say, ‘Hashem (God) has redeemed His servant Jacob.”
Isaiah 49:3 “…You are my servant, Israel, in whom I take glory.”
For a Christian who reads the Bible I’m surprised you are not aware of how it refers to the entire nation of Israel repeatedly as a single person, or with singular pronouns. But now that we have established from the Book of Isaiah that “servant” in the singular is a reference to Israel, as it is from Isaiah 52:13.
Furthermore, if we were to assume for the sake of argument that Isaiah 52-53 is speaking of a single individual who is to come, it still does not prove Jesus. You can try to “plug” in Jesus into Isaiah 52-53, but you cannot derive him from it. Consider the following:
Isaiah 52:15 says the kings will shut their mouths at him
When did this ever happen in the case of Jesus? The Jewish Study Bible says: “the servant is probably the nation Israel, and the nations are stunned that such an insignificant and lowly group turns out to have been so important to the divine plan.” (p. 891)
Isaiah 53:2 says he is unattractive. Was Jesus known for being physically unattractive? On the contrary, he is universally depicted as being good looking by Christians themselves.
Isaiah 53:3 says he is despised and rejected by men and a man of sorrows.
Jesus was not known as being a man of sorrows. If you say he suffered on the cross, then this is not something unique to Jesus, practically everyone suffers sometime in their life. But this verse is describing someone who will be known for suffering and be despised.
Isaiah 53:7 is interesting, because some Gospel accounts say Jesus was silent at his trial, but others mention an entire dialogue between him and those who put him on trial, including his trial before Pilate.
Isaiah 53:10 is your biggest problem. You claim that the seed that is mentioned is not literal, and you quoted Galatians which is circular reasoning. Why should the Jews believe seed is not literal just because Galatians says it?
The fact of the matter is that you are don’t know Hebrew and this is the biggest problem with Christians. They don’t understand that the word Zera can never be used for children in a figurative sense.
If it is so easy to make up convenient interpretations and manipulate the text to make it mean what you want it to mean, then practically anyone can claim that he is the “suffering servant”. Even I can claim I am the suffering servant of Isaiah if it is that easy to play around with the words and the context.
As for your claim that Targum identified the servant with the Messiah, here’s what the Jewish Study Bible has to say: “Targum and various midrashim identify the servant as the Messiah, but this suggestion is unlikely, since nowhere else does Deutero-Isaiah refer to the Messiah” (p. 891).
Finally, please pardon me for my mistake of saying Herod ordered the census. What I meant is that the New Testament claims the census took place during the reign of King Herod (which is factually incorrect).
However my point is that the secular scholars do not consider the nativity story as historically accurate, specifically about the census ordering people to return to their ancestral villages. That is simply implausible: “Sanders considers Luke's census, for which everyone returned to their ancestral home, not historically credible, as this was contrary to Roman practice; they would not have uprooted everyone from their homes and farms in the Empire by forcing them to return to their ancestral cities. Moreover, people were not able to trace their own lineages back 42 generations.” (Sanders, E. P. The historical figure of Jesus. Penguin, 1993. Sanders discusses both birth narratives in detail, contrasts them, and judges them not historical on pp. 85–88)
One sees a recurring theme of the Gospel writers making up legendary accounts which are historically inaccurate and implausible in order to convince the reader that Jesus fulfilled various Messianic prophecies. This is definitely the conclusion of secular scholars, I’ve yet to see Christians give a compelling reply to it.

Archaeology is still catching up with the Bible. For example, there was no archaeological evidence for Pilate until 1961, and none for King David until 1992, but the Bible was right all along. So dismissing the historical accuracy of the Bible is really premature. On the census in particular I’ll let William Lane Craig comment: “We do have positive evidence that there was a census taken by Quirinius around AD 6 or 7. But it’s very interesting that Luke refers to this census when he talks about the revolt of Judas the Galilean. But when he talks about the census that drew Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem he says this was the first census, which suggests that Luke is differentiating this census from the later one taken by Quirinius. So he doesn’t seem to be confusing the two; he’s aware of the latter one, and he’s saying this is an earlier one.” And again, “We should note that he [Luke] doesn’t actually say that Quirinius was the governor at this time. The word he uses in the Greek is not the Greek word for “governor”, and it could have been that Quirinius, as a military commander, directed this census at the behest of the authority in power.” (quoted from reasonablefaith.org)


On identifying the Injil, the natural understanding when reading the Quran, which claims to be clear, is that the People of the Book have a book that they recognize, prior to and independently of Muslims. They are not the People of the books that Muslims identify for them. So when the Quran tells Jews to judge by the Torah and Christians to judge by the Gospel, the reference is clearly to books that Jews and Christians themselves recognize. Whether or not Muslims recognize the same books is irrelevant. This is of course poses the dilemma that leads Muslims to disparage the Bible. All the cavils by secular scholars, skeptics, and non-Messianic Jews that Muslim apologists put forward constitute a pretense for rejecting the Bible, but the basic reason why Muslims are forced to reject the Bible is clear: the discontinuity of doctrine between the Bible and Islam that Muhammad never suspected was there. As to the etymology of the word, Injil, “The Gospel in Islam” page on Wikipedia traces the word back, as Christians also do, to the New Testament Greek, “euangelion.” “The Arabic word Injil (إنجيل) as found in Islamic texts, and now used also by Muslim non-Arabs and Arab non-Muslims, is derived from the Syriac Aramaic word awongaleeyoon found in the Peshitta (Syriac translation of the Bible), which in turn derives from the Greek word euangelion (Εὐαγγέλιον) of the originally Greek language New Testament, where it means ‘good news’ (from Greek ‘Εὐαγγέλιον’; Old English ‘gōdspel’; Modern English "gospel", or "evangel" as an archaism, cf. e.g. Spanish ‘evangelio’).”


On the identity of “servant” in Isaiah, I agree that it can refer to the whole nation of Israel, but that alone does not limit the meaning of the word “servant” to that sole usage. It does not automatically decide the identity of the servant in Isaiah 52 & 53. The immediate context as well as the broader context must still be taken into account, and not only the preceding chapters. Indeed, the whole Bible is the context.
Now the Bible uses typology, which is not one-dimensional like speaking in code. Typology is richer, and the same word or passage may have more than one referent, each modified by its context. In the case of Jonah, for example, the immediate referent is Jonah and his experience with the whale. That is one level of meaning. But as typology, Jonah’s experience points to the Messiah’s experience. However, Jesus’ application of the sign of Jonah to Himself no more obliges Him to be rescued from death like Jonah than it obliges Him to be thrown overboard and swallowed by a fish. The point is that the experience is analogous and typological; it does not have to be an identical, one-for-one correspondence. And as Jesus came to fulfill all the Messianic prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures, He surpasses the typology of Jonah’s experience by going farther, undergoing actual death and resurrection. Another similar type that the Messiah fulfills is Abraham’s near-sacrifice of Isaac. The surpassing, analogous message of that experience is set forth in the Gospel: the Father sacrifices His Son. This is the reality that the earlier type had pointed to all along. So too the Psalms frequently speak in the language of death and resurrection. It only remained for the Psalms’ figurative language to be surpassed and become real in the experience of the Messiah who died and rose again. Of course, some language can be applied only to the Messiah: “For Thou wilt not leave My soul in hell; neither wilt Thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption” (Psalm 16:10).


On 53:10, I already pointed out how the verse strongly confirms the ancient Jewish and Christian understanding that the Messiah is in view. The subject in verse 10 is said to be an “offering for sin,” but the only acceptable offering under the Mosaic Law had to be without blemish. Obviously the notion of a sinful offering for sin, such as the nation of Israel would have been, is absurd. The nation would have been a sacrifice in need of a sacrifice. Only the sinless Messiah was without blemish, and thus only He could be an acceptable offering. On “zera’” or “seed” in verse 10, the Hebrew literally says, “He seeth seed” (Young’s Literal Translation of the Holy Bible). There is no possessive pronoun “his” modifying the word “seed” in the original Hebrew, so the “seed” referred to does not have to be the Messiah’s own physical progeny.


On Hebrew zera’ again, you claimed the word was never used in a figurative sense. Happily, I studied both ancient Hebrew and Greek and can recognize the Hebrew word for “seed” in the text. Genesis 3 combines literal meaning with figurative meaning when it teaches that the “seed” of the woman would defeat the “seed” of the serpent. Obviously the Bible is not talking about literal descendents of a legless reptile. Significantly, this is the first explicit Messianic prophecy. The “seed of the woman” is an unusual, Biblical phrase, too, since “seed” ordinarily refers to the seed of men. This seed of the woman was fulfilled in the virgin birth of the Messiah, who destroys the works of “that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan” (Revelation 12).