The irony is that excluding faith as a component to the quoted verse from the Qur'an is that it can be said to be conjecture from either a Christian or Muslim as rationally speaking no one really knows.
No... there are a couple of finer points here, that are being overlooked:
Sorry Elsbet, according to my understanding, those aren't "finer points", they are twisted interpretations. What's amazing to me is that you actually believe it, but to each their own.No... there are a couple of finer points here, that are being overlooked:
Abraham and Isaac
God provided the sacrifice, then, as He later did on the cross.
"... now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me." And Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked, and look, behind him was a ram caught in the thicket by his horns. Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering instead of his son.
Abraham called the name of that place the LORD Will Provide. As it is said to this day, "On the LORD's mountain, it will be provided." GENESIS 2:22
-"By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead..." HEBREWS 11:17-19
Jonah and the Whale
The time that Jesus spent in the heart of the earth was after His death on the cross-- and it is from that state that he rose. If Jonah had died after being expelled from the whale, as you have suggested he should-- it wouldn't make much sense-- it would be inconsistent as the sign given (of which Jesus spoke) in the NT. But that isn't the case.
"A wicked and adulterous generation demands a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah." Then He [Jesus] left them and went away." MATTHEW 16:4
"... for, as Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights, so shall the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights." MATTHEW 12:40
Jonah spent three nights in the belly of the whale "... as one dead; for, without a miracle, he could not have lived an hour; and on the third day, as one raised from the dead."*
He returned, ALIVE, on the third day, just as Jesus did.
A bit of study quickly reveals the consistency of both instances, in foreshadowing the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Pretty amazing.
*GILL'S EXPOSITION
How so?
I am not amazed that you don't, any longer, and I'm content to leave you to it. But I will point out errors like yours for the record, when you cite biblical text, improperly (one would hope it is only done out of ignorance).
Some of your current questions suggest you have, to a degree, unthinkingly embraced an Islamic critique of the Bible and have set aside your previously quite incisive critical faculties in submission to very standard Muslim critiques of Christianity.
I think you're right about that. Quran does not specifically say that another person is crucified instead of Jesus on the cross.
A tale of two narratives that go right back to the earlies days of the Church, Serveto...The way I see it, none of us knows -except those who accept on faith, which is, granted, a significant number of people- what Jesus himself said: we know, rather, what he is said to have said. Jesus' gospel was oral. When, in our gospels, he went about 'preaching the gospel of the kingdom," he clearly did not open his New Testament and quote from Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Those are secondary gospels. Orthodox Christians -Catholics, Eastern, and Protestants alike on this point- accept on faith, in the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and in assurances that God's word will be protected, that there are no significant differences between Jesus' original, oral gospel and the other, secondary, written gospels in hand. Others, less faithful in a Christian sense, obviously disagree, or at least demur. I say, apart from faith, there is no rational basis by which to conclude. After all, it is called "faith" for a reason.
With that said, docetic heretics, if not in so many words, did leave some sorts of "proof" concerning their perceptions that another was crucified in Jesus' place. They are found, for instance, scattered in the fairly recently unearthed, much-disputed, hotly contested Nag Hammadi Library, and in other, now lost, arguably spurious "gospels."
I tend to think that, if early, heretical sects and movements hadn't been so vigorously fought by the church fathers, by what became the dominant Pauline sect, Christianity today would be as varied, in doctrine and dogma, as is, for instance, Hinduism. But that is another topic, which tends to win me even fewer friends (in what remains of Christendom), so I won't go there
From where did you get that? NT is nothing without OT. You should know better, the character of God: He changeth not and in Him is no shadow of turning.
I don't disagree with all that you say. The above is employed all the time by various groups and could just as easily be applied to Islam's claim to Isaiah 42.
Yet again 3 different groups using the Law and the Prophets but ending up diametrically opposed. Atleast Judaism testifies to the death of, who to them, was an imposter. Otherwise, we leave it to faith secular sources.
I would say it's because you don't truly know the character of God in the Old Testament. That's how it useful to be for me.
So even Beloved seems to admit that God appears different in the NT than the OT. So I'm not hallucinating nor am I the only person who thinks God appears different in the OT and NT.
I said:
I accept responsibility for this interaction. I "led the witness" in my opening statement, which is an objectional offense in courts of law, to which @elsbet rightly objected.
I once read that types and shadows are fine for illustrating doctrine, but not for defining it. The whole Lamb vs Ram thing perhaps demonstrates this principle rather well.
Talking of Messianics, I found this interesting on the topic:
Before I started reading the Old Testament, I had the misconception that God was different. I thought that way because I didn't know the Scriptures
I sometimes think of myself (not too formally) as a Messianic Jew, as I have some Jewish ancestry, so I know where you are coming from on this...
You may have led the witness, but the witness was only divulging what is already present in heart and mind. Before you martyr yourself, though, may I inquire on the source of your own contempt? I admit, it's nosy and intrusive to ask.
Interesting to unravel, isn't it? What is a "real" Jew - further subdivided by family heritage and spiritual background. After the destruction of the temple and the division between those who accepted Jesus as Messiah and those who rejected Him and followed on the path of Rabbinic Judaism instead, what are we to make of them and Gods future dealings with them?