"Hebrew Israelite" theology discussed...

Serveto

Star
Joined
Apr 20, 2017
Messages
1,060
TokiEl said:
It is difficult to doubt a religion which we have been born into.
It's not difficult for me. I often analyze, or question, my inherited religion with the same rigor and objectivity as I do the religions and ideologies of others. In fact, I am doing so now.

TokiEl said:
Also why is it that Islam is incapable of conquering Israel ?
Because "God," said Napoleon, "is on the side with the best artillery [weaponry]."

Daciple said:
I've read the Quran, so if Allah is the God that gave the Law of Moses then why is the post describing Salvation from the Islamic viewpoint above not contain one thing related to Salvation according to the Law of Moses?
In sum, I think it's because, much like Christianity in this respect alone, most of the "moral" aspects of the Mosaic law are, if restated in other words, nevertheless still contained within the Quran, but the "ceremonial" aspects are considered largely null and void, as having been applicable only to Israel. Unlike Christianity, however, Islam did not link salvation to the sacrifice of animals and to the atoning mysteries of blood, be it animal or (perfect) human (God/man).

TokiEl said:
Listen to what God says in His book.
Leviticus 17 11 "For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul."
Why is this statement respectable when written by a Levite, a priest of the sacerdotal caste of Judaism, but, if said by a practitioner of, say, Voodoo, Santeria or some pagan, animist cult, it would be considered at best superstitious? Even if they are deviant and don't explain it right, by putting it within an acceptable Jewish theological context, is ritual blood sacrifice one part, a sort of vestigial remain, of pure religion that Voodoo and Santeria got right?

Red Sky at Morning said:
I am listening through the OT at the moment with a keen ear on the distinction between Gods approval and the reporting of the actions of the people.

One thing I am struck by is how far from a conventional morality tale the accounts are. The characters have moments of exemplary conduct, rash cruelty, cowardice and bravery. In short, they remind me of the kind of people I know.

It reminds me of the old saying "How odd of God to choose the Jews". Odd indeed, just as odd as to bother with me...
I understand. It is one thing to choose the Jews, invariably faulty as humans, no doubt, but quite another, in my opinion, for the Old Testament authors to have God: a) establish the rights of primogeniture, the rights of the first-born male, only to then b) make him seemingly a party to circumventing or breaking those laws. Maybe it was such concepts as these which gave rise to the rationalist, apostate from the Catholic form of Christianity, Voltaire's statement:

“In the beginning God created man in His own image, and man has been trying to repay the favor ever since.”
 






Last edited:
Joined
Jan 9, 2018
Messages
1,320
Hey Claire, it appeared to those who were there that prophet Jesus was crucified but he was raised up and will be sent down to complete his mission..

“When Allah said: O Jesus! I will complete you(r term)

and cause you to ascend unto Me

and cleanse you of those who disbelieve...”

" Allah assures that Jesus will be saved from the Jews and that his term and what is destined for him is guaranteed for him and that Allah will cause Jesus to ascend unto Him. The Bible agrees that Jesus ascended unto heaven (Luke 24:51), but the main dispute is about what happened in between: the alleged crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus (pbuh).

Allah says in Qur'an that they neither killed him nor crucified him, but it was made to appear so unto them. In many places in Qur'an, it has been mentioned that Jews used to kill the prophets unjustly. But in the case of Jesus (pbuh) it vehemently denies that they killed him or that they crucified him. This is because Qur'an will not contain anything except truth.

Surah 4, Verses 157 & 158:

“and their saying : we killed Christ Jesus, son of Mary, The messenger of Allah - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but it was made to appear to them so; and those who disagree concerning it are full of doubts; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; For surely they killed him not; but Allah took him up unto Himself; and Allah is ever mighty, wise.”

From the sayings of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), we get a more detailed account. The Muslim belief is that Allah changed the face of the person who betrayed Jesus, showing to the rulers the place where he was hiding, into a face resembling Jesus. So, they crucified that betrayer instead of Jesus."
for more on this topic:


http://www.missionislam.com/comprel/jesuscrucified.htm
Wait, Jesus Himself told His disciples (and many others) that He would be crucified, and 3 days later be raised up from the dead. He prophecied His own crucifixion many times, & to various people.

And after Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus, (Jesus KNEW Judas would betray Him, which is why He chose Judas to be His disciple) so Jesus would be arrested & crucified, to fulfill the Will of the Father in Heaven.

Judas realized that the blood of the just man(Jesus) was on his hands & he tried to give the Jews back the 30 pcs of silver that they paid him.

They refused, so Judas went and hanged himself.

So if , according to Muhammad, Allah changed the face of Jesus, then who hanged himself?

And what would even be the reason for changing his face? It doesn’t make sense.

What about all of the witnesses of Christ’s crucifixion, the Roman that stabbed Him with a spear & the thousands of people who witnessed Christ’s resurrection andHis appearance in His postmortem, glorified body which still bore the holes from the nails driven through Him?

Why would ONLY Muhammad claim this, when Muhammad was not even there because Muhammad was born several hundreds of years later?
 






Damien50

Star
Joined
Apr 22, 2017
Messages
1,793
I think he means the Messiah, Jesus Christ, who is both the Son of God(God manifest in flesh) & the Son of Man(born of the Virgin Mary).
So is there no distinction between God and his word?

John 1:14 KJV
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

My word is at my command but it isn't literally me so am I supposed to take the below verse as literal? I was under the impression His word had been personified, manifest in the flesh, killed, and subsequently resurrected. In the context of salvation or even mediation isn't our only recourse for rekindling what was lost with Adam through belief and obedience to the word of God?

John 1:1 KJV
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
 






DesertRose

Superstar
Joined
May 20, 2017
Messages
5,528
@Claire Rousseau here are further explanations by a Muslim theologian about the events. It also mentions at the end that there were some early Christians who did not believe that it was Jesus peace be upon him who died upon the cross. Please note, that this issue is periperal in Islam ( we accept this miracle) however Jesus peace be upon God being a messenger of God and not God is a central issue that is crucial to salvation and belief in the One God. In addition, prophet Jesus will come back lead a human life with a mission to deal with the anti-Christ and subsequently have a natural death.
Excerpts from the article:

In his tafseer Ibn Kathir has elaborated on this in the following words:

"(The people conspiring against Jesus) “envied him because of his prophethood and obvious miracles; curing the blind and leprous and bringing the dead back to life, by Allah’s leave. He also used to make the shape of a bird from clay and blow in it, and it became a bird by Allah’s leave and flew. `Isa performed other miracles that Allah honored him with, yet some defied and belied him and tried their best to harm him. Allah’s Prophet `Isa could not live in any one city for long and he had to travel often with his mother, peace be upon them. Even so, some of the Jews were not satisfied, and they went to the king of Damascus at that time, a Greek polytheist who worshipped the stars. They told him that there was a man in Bayt Al-Maqdis misguiding and dividing the people in Jerusalem and stirring unrest among the king’s subjects. The king became angry and wrote to his deputy in Jerusalem to arrest the rebel leader, stop him from causing unrest, crucify him and make him wear a crown of thorns. When the king’s deputy in Jerusalem received these orders, he went with some Jews to the house that `Isa was residing in, and he was then with twelve, thirteen or seventeen of his companions. That day was a Friday, in the evening. They surrounded `Isa in the house, and when he felt that they would soon enter the house or that he would sooner or later have to leave it, he said to his companions, “Who volunteers to be made to look like me, for which he will be my companion in Paradise.”’ A young man volunteered, but `Isa thought that he was too young. He asked the question a second and third time, each time the young man volunteering, prompting `Isa to say, “Well then, you will be that man.” Allah made the young man look exactly like `Isa, while a hole opened in the roof of the house, and `Isa was made to sleep and ascended to heaven while asleep. Allah said, “O `Isa! I will take you and raise you to myself.” When `Isa ascended, those who were in the house came out. When those surrounding the house saw the man who looked like `Isa, they thought that he was `Isa. So they took him at night, crucified him and placed a crown of thorns on his head. They then boasted that they killed `Isa and some Christians accepted their false claim, due to their ignorance and lack of reason. As for those who were in the house with `Isa, witnessed his ascension to heaven, while the rest thought that the Jews killed `Isa by crucifixion. They even said that Maryam sat under the corpse of the crucified man and cried, and they say that the dead man spoke to her. All this was a test from Allah for His servants out of His wisdom. Allah explained this matter in the Glorious Quran which He sent to His honorable Messenger, whom He supported with miracles and clear, unequivocal evidence. Allah is the Most Truthful, and He is the Lord of the worlds Who knows the secrets, what the hearts conceal, the hidden matters in heaven and earth, what has occurred, what will occur, and what would occur if it was decreed ."(Kathir I. , Tafsir Ibn Kathir).

"At another place in his Tafseer, Ibn Kathir narrates the same story and links it to Muslims:

Ibn Abi Hatim recorded that Ibn `Abbas said, “Just before Allah raised `Isa (Jesus) to the heavens, `Isa went to his companions, who were twelve inside the house. When he arrived, his hair was dripping water and he said, ‘There are those among you who will disbelieve in me twelve times after he had believed in me.’ He then asked, ‘Who volunteers that his image appear as mine, and be killed in my place. He will be with me (in Paradise).’ One of the youngest ones among them volunteered and `Isa asked him to sit down. `Isa (Jesus) again asked for a volunteer, and the young man kept volunteering and `Isa asking him to sit down. Then the young man volunteered again and `Isa (Jesus) said, ‘You will be that man,’ and the resemblance of `Isa was cast over that man while `Isa ascended to heaven from a hole in the house. When the Jews came looking for `Isa, they found that young man and crucified him. Some of `Isa’s (Jesus’) followers disbelieved in him twelve times after they had believed in him. They then divided into three groups. One group, Al-Ya`qubiyyah (Jacobites), said, ‘Allah remained with us as long as He willed and then ascended to heaven.’ Another group, An-Nasturiyyah (Nestorians), said, ‘The son of Allah was with us as long as he willed and Allah took him to heaven.’ Another group, Muslims, said, ‘The servant and Messenger of Allah remained with us as long as Allah willed, and Allah then took him to Him.’ The two disbelieving groups cooperated against the Muslim group and they killed them. Ever since that happened, Islam was then veiled until Allah sent Muhammad.”’ This statement has an authentic chain of narration leading to Ibn `Abbas, and An-Nasa’i narrated it through Abu Kurayb who reported it from Abu Mu`awiyah (Kathir I. , Tafsir Ibn Kathir, p. 771).

In his article “Before Nicea” Abdul-Haq ibn Kofi ibn Kwesi ibn al-Ashanti has provided another reference to the same event. According to him:

Some of the first groups that followed the way of Jesus and also several other historical sources other than the Quran confirm that Jesus did not die on the cross. John Toland in his work ‘The Nazarenes’ mentions that Plotinus who lived in the 4th century stated that he had read a book called ‘The Journeys of the Apostles’, which related traditions of Peter, John, Andrew, Thomas and Paul. Among other things, the book stated that Jesus was not crucified, but rather another in his place, and therefore, Jesus and the apostles had laughed at those who believed Jesus had died on the cross. Similar was the belief of Basileides and his followers/students who were known as the Basildians."

source: http://www.iqrasense.com/islamic-belief/islamic-beliefs-on-death-of-jesus-and-crucifixion.html

 






Last edited:

Forever Light

Veteran
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
857
"Yes, but the context the Muslims use is that Jesus escaped being murdered because someone else took his place on the cross and that He didn't rise from the dead. This goes against the eyewitness accounts in the gospels."

That may be the view that is still held by most of the Islamic traditions, but not by all of them. Some accept the crucifixion and the debate is still ongoing amongst them regarding the meaning of the verses. For instance:

"Professor and scholar Mahmoud M. Ayoub sums up what the Quran states despite interpretative arguments:

The Quran, as we have already argued, does not deny the death of Christ. Rather, it challenges human beings who in their folly have deluded themselves into believing that they would vanquish the divine Word, Jesus Christ the Messenger of God. The death of Jesus is asserted several times and in various contexts.
— 3:55; 5:117; 19:33.[8]"

"In regard to the interpretation of the Muslims who accept the crucifixion, Mahmoud Ayoub states:

The Qur'an is not here speaking about a man, righteous and wronged though he may be, but about the Word of God who was sent to earth and returned to God. Thus the denial of killing of Jesus is a denial of the power of men to vanquish and destroy the divine Word, which is for ever victorious.[18]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_vi...s%27_death

Sura
19:33. "So Peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)"!
19:34. Such (was) Jesus the son of Mary: (it is) a statement of truth, about which they (vainly) dispute.

Mahmoud is correct in his statement because human+beings do not consist of a single entity, but of two entities that are joined together (human+being).

the human is one entity (it is the human-animal body)
+
the being is another entity (the soul - the REAL you - not the body)

They only succeeded in killing his body (Jesus) but they did not succeed in crucifying and killing Him (Christ).
(And then after three days, Jesus (his body) was resurrected by God as attested to by the testimony of multiple witness accounts).

human+being
Jesus+Christ

http://thewayhomeorfacethefire.net
See: [They Killed Christ Not]
 






Last edited:

Daciple

Star
Joined
Apr 25, 2017
Messages
1,157
Hey Daciple once prophet Eesa Jesus peace be upon Him came it was incumbent on the Jews to follow him and likewise once Prophet Muhammad peace be upon Him came it was incumbent on all to follow him.

"The aayah (interpretation of the meaning), “And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers” [Aal ‘Imraan 3:85] is a statement that Allaah will not accept any way or deed from anyone, after sending His Final Messenger, except those that are in accordance with the laws of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).

Prior to this, however, anyone who followed the Prophet of his own time was on the Straight Path of salvation. So the Jews were those who followed Moosa (Moses peace be upon him) and referred to the Tawraat (Torah) for judgement at that time. When Allaah sent ‘Eesa (peace be upon him), the Children of Israel were obliged to follow him and obey him, and so they and others who followed him became Christians.. When Allaah sent Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), as the Final Prophet and a Messenger to all the children of Adam, all of mankind was obliged to believe in him and obey him, and refrain from what he prohibited. Those who did so are the true believers. The ummah (nation) of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) are called the believers because of their deep eemaan (faith) and conviction, and because they believe in all the past Prophets and in the prophesied events that are yet to come.”

source: https://islamqa.info/en/2912
Just wondering if you are able to answer in your own words? I'd like for you to personally explain it from your own personal understanding and not from citations of others works, if you are able.

So I asked if Allah is the God of Moses, then asked why is it that if Allah is the God that gave the Law of Moses, that the answer provided for Salvation in Islam doesnt contain one single reference to Salvation as deemed needed by the God that gave the Law of Moses. The answer provided from this site really doesnt address the question.

The God that gave the Law of Moses says specifically that ALL Sin is against Him, and that ALL Sin requires Blood Sacrifice for Atonement.

Lev 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

The problem I have always had with Islamic Salvation is it completely ignores this very explict command given by the God of Abraham Issac Jacob and Moses. Also since God has given a Law, and given the penalty for breaking His Law (Death) and the method in which there is Atonement or Forgiveness for the breaking of His Law (Sacrifice of Blood) then it makes no sense for Allah to completely ignore this aspect of Salvation. There is no call for Atonement by way of the Law God gave to Moses in Islam.

Also according to the above method of Salvation in Islam, God who gave the Law to Moses, rejects His own Law and Justice, and therefore if Allah is the same God that gave us the Law of Moses, He is now a Liar which I dont believe God can lie. Not only would He be a Liar but He would be an Unjust Judge. On Earth if a Judge doesnt properly apply the Sentence in which the Law states is deemed necessary according to the Law he is considered an unjust Judge. An example would be if a person in their right mind willfully murders someone and the Law states that they must be sentenced to the Death Penalty and then the Judge decides to forgive him and let him go for whatever reason, then he is an unjust Judge who didnt apply the Law properly.

If we accept that Allah gave Moses the Law, and we say that Forgivness and Justification by Allah works as outlined above then we have no choice then to say that either Allah is NOT the God of Moses and NOT the God that gave Him the Law or that Allah is an Unjust God who is a liar and breaks His own Law. There is literally no other way or no other options we have.

In sum, I think it's because, much like Christianity in this respect alone, most of the "moral" aspects of the Mosaic law are, if restated in other words, nevertheless still contained within the Quran, but the "ceremonial" aspects are considered largely null and void, as having been applicable only to Israel. Unlike Christianity, however, Islam did not link salvation to the sacrifice of animals and to the atoning mysteries of blood, be it animal or (perfect) human (God/man).
Yet in Christianity it acknowledges and then fulfills the Law given to Moses. The Law states clearly that Blood Atonement is needed for Forgiveness and Justification, hence Jesus Christ coming and shedding His Blood for the Forgiveness of Sin. And you are showing the exact problem I am bringing up, Islam does not link Salvation to the Blood which is specifically what the Law of Moses demands. So how can Allah be the one who gave the Law to Moses if Allah doesnt acknowledge the necessity of Blood for Atonement? Either Allah is a liar and unjust Judge or Allah didnt give Moses the Law, there really isnt anything else we can conclude. The only other possible way to conclude anything different is to say that God really didnt give the Law of Moses to Moses and well the History of Israel pretty much negates that ideology...
 






Damien50

Star
Joined
Apr 22, 2017
Messages
1,793
To my dear friend @Serveto :). Before you read the below always remember there is a reason for everything God does.

Jacob and Esau
Jacob was the son of Isaac and Rebekah, and younger twin brother of Esau. Jacob’s parents had been married for 20 years before the birth of these twins, they're only children, in 1858 B.C.E. Isaac at the time was 60 years old.
The faithful patriarch Jacob's life was marked by strife and calamity. Though he was blessed with material wealth and 12 sons, Jacob’s life was not without difficulties. His daughter is raped, his sons then massacre those responsible, and he weeps over the tragic loss of his favorite son and wife. He doesn't get the girl he loves, thin is tricked into marrying someone else first, and ends up with four wives resulting in many problems. He works as a hired laborer for 20 years for a man who exploits him. He has a wrestling match with an angel and suffers permanent damage. In order to escape the famine that has raged his homeland he is forced to emigrate in his old age to a distant land, he even admits that his days have been few and distressing. Jacob is still regarded as a spiritual man who trusts in God. He has a twin brother that harbors deep hostility toward him which causes him to flee for his life. Jacob was highly favored by God because he demonstrated deep appreciation for sacred things. The land of promise made to Abraham was reassured to Jacob that his offspring would inherit it, further God told Jacob: “By means of your seed all the families of the ground will certainly bless themselves.”—Ge 28:4, 10-15.

Esau was given that name because of his unusual hairy appearance at birth also he got the name Edom meaning red from the red lentil stew for which he sold his birthright. Esau was the firstborn of Isaac and Rebekah; the twin brother of Jacob and the forerunner of the Edomites.
Contempt for Spiritual Matters: Jacob and Esau
Esau was a skilled and adventurous Hunter a “wild man” as it were, in contrast to his brother Jacob who was blameless valued spiritual things. Esau was fleshly minded and materialistic, they're farther Isaac loved Esau “because it meant game in his mouth”.

Esau also was an impetuous individual who sold his birthright by sworn oath to Jacob for one meal lentil stew and bread. This event happened one day when Esau was tired and hungry he came along from the field while Jacob was blowing up some stew. Esau asked “quickly please give me a swallow of the red the red there”, Jacob then asks him to sell his birthright. Having no appreciation for sacred things namely the promise of Jehovah to Abraham respecting the seed through whom all nations of the earth will bless themselves Esau immediately gave that up. This demonstrated that he despised his birthright viewing it as of little value; Esau's showed a complete lack of faith. He may have had in mind the suffering that Abraham's seed was to experience; Reasons enough why Jehovah said, “I loved Jacob, but Esau I hated.”—Ro 9:13 this statement by God is evidence of his favor between Jacob and Esau.
“Your seed will become an alien resident in a land not theirs and they will have to serve them, and these will certainly afflict them for four hundred years.” At the age of 40, Esau made his own arrangements for marriage. By choice he became a polygamist, and unlike his father Isaac, who had let his father Abraham arrange for a wife from the worshipers of Jehovah, Esau took two pagan Hittite women, Judith (Oholibamah?) and Basemath (Adah?), as wives. These women proved to be a source of bitterness of spirit to both Isaac and Rebekah.—Ge 26:34, 35; 36:2
Jacob impersonates Esau

It is easy to draw the wrong conclusion as to why Jacob misrepresented himself to his father, however so we properly conclude that the outcome of the matter was what Jehovah purposed, the Bible states clearly in the lesson that we should draw from this account, warning that we should be careful “that there may be no fornicator nor anyone not appreciating sacred things, like Esau, who in exchange for one meal gave away his right as firstborn”. Let's now look at what happened between Jacob and Esau and his father Isaac, and let’s not forget Rebekah, she had a hand in it as well. Isaac was well along in age and knew he was soon to die so he sent out Esau to hunt for venison, saying to him “Let me eat, in order that my soul may bless you before I die, Rebecca was nearby and overheard the conversation it immediately sent Jacob to get to kids of the goat so she can prepare a tasty dish for Isaac and she said to take Jacob “You must bring it to your father and he must eat it, in order that he may bless you before his death.”

Remember Esau was very hairy so how would Isaac not be aware that he was speaking to Jacob instead of Esau? Rebecca put the skins of the kids on Jacob's hands and neck to cause Isaac went feeling Jacob to conclude that he was Esau. Jacob now brought the food to his father Isaac and Isaac asked him “Who are you, my son?” And Jacob answered: “I am Esau your firstborn.” Legally, as Jacob well knew, he was entitled to act in the role of Esau, the firstborn of Isaac. Isaac felt Jacob to see if this was really Esau or not, and he said: “The voice is the voice of Jacob, but the hands are the hands of Esau.” Nevertheless, matters worked out successfully, and as the account says, “He blessed him.” (Ge 27:1-29) Had Rebekah and Jacob done the right thing?

Jehovah God had foreseen the outcome of these events when he stated “The older will serve the younger” Jacob was definitely entitled to the blessing, as this was spoken before their birth. Esau sold his birthright to Jacob for just a bowl of stew. As sacred as the birthright was he showed great disdain for it
Jacob and Rebekah knew that the blessing belongs to Jacob, Jacob did not maliciously misrepresent himself in order to get something that did not rightfully belong to him, more importantly the Bible does not condemn what Rebekah and Jacob did. The outcome was that Jacob received the rightful blessing. Isaac himself evidently saw that Jehovah’s will had been accomplished. Shortly after this, when sending Jacob off to Haran to get a wife, Isaac further blessed Jacob and specifically said: “God Almighty. . . will give to you the blessing of Abraham.” Jacob and Esau, twins with opposite appreciation for spiritual values.
https://ebible.com/questions/289-why-did-god-love-jacob-and-hate-esau-malachi-1-3-romans-9-13
 






Damien50

Star
Joined
Apr 22, 2017
Messages
1,793
Just wondering if you are able to answer in your own words? I'd like for you to personally explain it from your own personal understanding and not from citations of others works, if you are able.

So I asked if Allah is the God of Moses, then asked why is it that if Allah is the God that gave the Law of Moses, that the answer provided for Salvation in Islam doesnt contain one single reference to Salvation as deemed needed by the God that gave the Law of Moses. The answer provided from this site really doesnt address the question.

The God that gave the Law of Moses says specifically that ALL Sin is against Him, and that ALL Sin requires Blood Sacrifice for Atonement.

Lev 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

The problem I have always had with Islamic Salvation is it completely ignores this very explict command given by the God of Abraham Issac Jacob and Moses. Also since God has given a Law, and given the penalty for breaking His Law (Death) and the method in which there is Atonement or Forgiveness for the breaking of His Law (Sacrifice of Blood) then it makes no sense for Allah to completely ignore this aspect of Salvation. There is no call for Atonement by way of the Law God gave to Moses in Islam.

Also according to the above method of Salvation in Islam, God who gave the Law to Moses, rejects His own Law and Justice, and therefore if Allah is the same God that gave us the Law of Moses, He is now a Liar which I dont believe God can lie. Not only would He be a Liar but He would be an Unjust Judge. On Earth if a Judge doesnt properly apply the Sentence in which the Law states is deemed necessary according to the Law he is considered an unjust Judge. An example would be if a person in their right mind willfully murders someone and the Law states that they must be sentenced to the Death Penalty and then the Judge decides to forgive him and let him go for whatever reason, then he is an unjust Judge who didnt apply the Law properly.

If we accept that Allah gave Moses the Law, and we say that Forgivness and Justification by Allah works as outlined above then we have no choice then to say that either Allah is NOT the God of Moses and NOT the God that gave Him the Law or that Allah is an Unjust God who is a liar and breaks His own Law. There is literally no other way or no other options we have.



Yet in Christianity it acknowledges and then fulfills the Law given to Moses. The Law states clearly that Blood Atonement is needed for Forgiveness and Justification, hence Jesus Christ coming and shedding His Blood for the Forgiveness of Sin. And you are showing the exact problem I am bringing up, Islam does not link Salvation to the Blood which is specifically what the Law of Moses demands. So how can Allah be the one who gave the Law to Moses if Allah doesnt acknowledge the necessity of Blood for Atonement? Either Allah is a liar and unjust Judge or Allah didnt give Moses the Law, there really isnt anything else we can conclude. The only other possible way to conclude anything different is to say that God really didnt give the Law of Moses to Moses and well the History of Israel pretty much negates that ideology...
You posted the verse I was thinking. I don't think most know what the significance of blood was or what it represented biblically.
 






DesertRose

Superstar
Joined
May 20, 2017
Messages
5,528
@Daciple
Btw Serveto answered a part of that question above.
Here is my answer:
Allah is the same God of Moses however the jurisprudence or the law differs with each prophet peace be upon all of them.. They carry the same message but what is permissible and what is prohibited including details regarding the acts of worship differ.

The God that gave the Law of Moses says specifically that ALL Sin is against Him, and that ALL Sin requires Blood Sacrifice for Atonement.

Lev 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
I am not familiar with biblical arguments and would suggest if you want to discuss comparative religion you can contact the sites I provided above and the site below. My focus regards explanations of the Islamic belief system.
Regarding this issue I found this article for you if you wish to read further:
source:http://www.answering-christianity.com/a_t/mosaic_law.htm

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

“The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. “But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statuses and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him; in his righteousness that he hath done, he shall live.” Ezekiel 18:20-22

"Without question, this passage runs in direct contrast with what we find in the teachings of Paul, and it also proves that Paul’s claim that his teachings are in accordance with the scriptures is false. The spilling of innocent blood for the redemption of mankind is a belief that has its roots in paganism (which is covered elsewhere in this book) and was adopted into Christianity by Paul and solidified as dogma at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. Blood atonement was never a teaching of Prophet Jesus(as), nor did he ever make mention of it. Far be it for a messenger of Almighty God to indulge in pagan practices and beliefs. Paul introduced this pagan concept into Christianity, thanks in large part to his Nicolation background."
 






Last edited:

TokiEl

Star
Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
4,620
“The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. “But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statuses and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him; in his righteousness that he hath done, he shall live.” Ezekiel 18:20-22

"Without question, this passage runs in direct contrast with what we find in the teachings of Paul, and it also proves that Paul’s claim that his teachings are in accordance with the scriptures is false. The spilling of innocent blood for the redemption of mankind is a belief that has its roots in paganism (which is covered elsewhere in this book) and was adopted into Christianity by Paul and solidified as dogma at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. Blood atonement was never a teaching of Prophet Jesus(as), nor did he ever make mention of it. Far be it for a messenger of Almighty God to indulge in pagan practices and beliefs. Paul introduced this pagan concept into Christianity, thanks in large part to his Nicolation background."

Unbelievable.

Did you already forget this ?

Leviticus 17 11"For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I [God] have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.' "

Blood is required by God to make atonement for sins !
 






TokiEl

Star
Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
4,620
Leviticus 17 11"For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.' "
Why is this statement respectable when written by a Levite, a priest of the sacerdotal caste of Judaism, but, if said by a practitioner of, say, Voodoo, Santeria or some pagan, animist cult, it would be considered at best superstitious? Even if they are deviant and don't explain it right, by putting it within an acceptable Jewish theological context, is ritual blood sacrifice one part, a sort of vestigial remain, of pure religion that Voodoo and Santeria got right?

Look i did not make the universe nor the moral laws governing human interaction nor the requirements of reparation.

What can i do other than point to God's written words about these things ?

The big difference between God's sacrifical system and Santeria is that the former spills blood to the Lord of spirits to make atonement for sins while the latter spills blood to a lesser spirit for some vain personal gain.
 






DesertRose

Superstar
Joined
May 20, 2017
Messages
5,528
Unbelievable.

Did you already forget this ?

Leviticus 17 11"For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I [God] have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.' "

Blood is required by God to make atonement for sins !
Tokei, Muslims do not accept these scriptures as is ( or in a wholesale manner), we believe they have been tampered with as has been highlighted numerous times on this thread so with respect, I think you are forgetting that point.

To highlight this point:
"The fact that Christian scripture has suffered human tampering, not only explains the many discrepancies between the old and new Testaments, but also explains why such discrepancies exist in the first place. Rev. G.H. Richardson, from Bunker Hill, Illinois, reveals disturbing facts about the Bible:

“It cannot be questioned that many pagan as well as uncritical Jewish ideas are attached to our views of the Bible.

When the Christian church took over the Old Testament it took too many Jewish and pagan theories with it, and these have too long been hanging like a millstone round the neck of Biblical studies”(6).

Along the same vein Dr. Gary D. Guthrie, a world authority on comparative religion, who explains why many contradictions exist not only between the old and new Testaments but also among the four Gospels, writes:

“The writers of the Christian Gospels, as well as the compilers, were pressed to please too many bickering factions (Gnostic, Pauline, and Pertine, to name just the major ones).

This is the reason that many contradictions, such as a kingdom of this world and not yet of this world, existed”(7).

We finally turn to Thomas Paine(8), who confirms what has been quoted so far:

“Had it been the object or intention of Jesus Christ to establish a new religion(9), he would undoubtedly have written the system himself, or procured it to be written in his life-time, but there is no publication extant authenticated with his name.

All the books called the New Testament were written after his death”(10).

source: http://www.dawahskills.com/featured-posts/religion-distortion-rejection-christianity

Regarding the blood atonement I posted this and gave the source for you to read :

“The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. “But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statuses and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him; in his righteousness that he hath done, he shall live.” Ezekiel 18:20-22

"Without question, this passage runs in direct contrast with what we find in the teachings of Paul, and it also proves that Paul’s claim that his teachings are in accordance with the scriptures is false. The spilling of innocent blood for the redemption of mankind is a belief that has its roots in paganism (which is covered elsewhere in this book) and was adopted into Christianity by Paul and solidified as dogma at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. Blood atonement was never a teaching of Prophet Jesus(as), nor did he ever make mention of it. Far be it for a messenger of Almighty God to indulge in pagan practices and beliefs. Paul introduced this pagan concept into Christianity, thanks in large part to his Nicolation background."
source:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/a_t/mosaic_law.htm

Muslims are tasked to convey their own message and I have done that to the best of my ability. I will withdraw for now unless someone wants clarification about my belief system and God willing I or other Muslims can answer it.

Say: O People of the Scripture! Come to a common word between us and you: that we shall worship none but God, and that we shall ascribe no partner unto Him, and that none of us shall take others for lords beside God. And if they turn away, then say: Bear witness that we are they who have surrendered (unto Him). (Aal ‘Imran 3:64)
 






Last edited:

TokiEl

Star
Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
4,620
Tokei, Muslims do not accept these scriptures as is ( or in a wholesale manner), we believe they have been tampered with as has been highlighted numerous times on this thread so with respect, I think you are forgetting that point.
You believe the Bible have been tampered with ?

Yes that is what some say the commies masons and muslims masquerading as modern christian scholars.

As i see it and i know for a fact that Jesus is God and so He of course has the responsibility to protect His written words for us.




Regarding the blood atonement I posted this and gave the source for you to read :

“The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. “But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statuses and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him; in his righteousness that he hath done, he shall live.” Ezekiel 18:20-22
Yes another man cannot atone with his blood for his brother.

Only God can atone for another.

The reason why the wicked back then would live if he turned from his wickedness is because God would atone with His blood for the sins of the wicked.
 






DesertRose

Superstar
Joined
May 20, 2017
Messages
5,528
Only God can atone for another.
How about this TokEi ......God can just forgive if we cease our sins and repent?

"O son of Adam, as long as you call upon Me and put your hope in Me, I have forgiven you for what you have done and I do not mind. O son of Adam, if your sins were to reach the clouds of the sky and then you would seek My forgiveness, I would forgive you. O son of Adam, if you were to come to Me with sins that are close to filling the earth and then you would meet Me without ascribing any partners with Me, I would certainly bring to you forgiveness close to filling it." Hadith Qudsi

Say, "O My servants who have transgressed against themselves [by sinning], do not despair of the mercy of Allah. Indeed, Allah forgives all sins. Indeed, it is He who is the Forgiving, the Merciful." Quran (39:53)


You believe the Bible have been tampered with ?
Yes that is what some say the commies masons and muslims masquerading as modern christian scholars.
As i see it and i know for a fact that Jesus is God and so He of course has the responsibility to protect His written words for us.
I do not know about commie masons but we are not allowed to masquerade as people of another faith.
We believe God guides whom he wills.
ToKei since the common word is not for you.
We can agree to disagree.
"For you is your religion, and for me is my religion." Quran109:6
 






Last edited:

TokiEl

Star
Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
4,620
How about this TokEi ......God can just forgive if we cease our sins and repent?
Where is the justice in that ?

What is the point of law order and courts if God just claps His hands and say I forgive you ?

No God need reparations and so do i !

You do the crime you do the time.

Now how God chose to solve this issue of justice is by Him being brutally beaten and humiliated and strung up on a cross and pierced.

So God accepts and so do i if you repent of your crime because God already paid the price for it.
 






DesertRose

Superstar
Joined
May 20, 2017
Messages
5,528
Where is the justice in that ?
What is the point of law order and courts if God just claps His hands and say I forgive you ?
We already discussed this here btw. If the sin involves a sin against a law of the Creator and no one else the sinner can cease (the sin) and repent.(example gambling)
If the sin involves the creation they are held accountable.
Peace
 






Last edited:

Daciple

Star
Joined
Apr 25, 2017
Messages
1,157
Right. Christianity, without Judaism's permission or concurrence, claims to be the fulfillment of the Mosaic Law, and Christianity appends its "New" Testament to the "Old," thus forming a single compilation of books Christians call the Holy Bible, which Christians accept in its entirety.
So I believe that you have Judaism as practiced today and by the Pharisees of the past being a wholly different Religion than the Faith of Abraham and it is very clear in the Faith of Abraham as testified by the Scriptures that there will be a Messiah who shall come and establish a New Covenant. There is no need for permission from the Religion of the Pharisees to fulfill the Scriptures..

Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:

33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Matt 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Not that this is part of the conversation but I just wanted to make this distinction, Judaism is not the Faith of Abraham...

Islam, as I imperfectly understand (and Muslims please correct me when necessary), with its Quran, stands apart, appending itself to neither the Old nor the New Testament, thus also verifying neither, yet comments upon the various divinely revealed "books" which preceded it: the Torah, Zabur (psalms), Injil (gospel), etc. Combined with sometimes remarkable respect, it also has more than a few reminders, and definite admonition, advice, cease and desist orders, etc., directed specifically to the "People" of those "books," Jews and Christians.
Well unless they decided to say it is Prophesying Muhammad or some other aspect of Islam, then all of the sudden the Old or New Testament verses are legit. If Islam and Christianity/ the Faith of Abraham were from the same God then all 3 books would come to agreement, however we have 2 that agree and one that stands in stark contrast to everything held within the other two, especially concerning the Method of Salvation....

As I see it, orthodox Christians accepted the Old Testament books as inspired scripture, and showed, by means of those books, how Jesus was the fulfillment of the Law, saying that animal sacrifices were a precursor to the ultimate sacrifice of the High Priest himself.
Agree.

Islam, on the other hand, stands apart, often though not invariably claiming, even if only on faith alone, that the originally pure Torah and Injil are essentially lost to posterity. The ones in hand have been corrupted by priests, scribes and others. It might be true, then, that the Law in its present form "states clearly that blood atonement is needed for forgiveness," yet even that, when it comes to interpretation, is arguable (hello @Yahda and [Judaism's] Maimonides).
Right I understand, it is lost however except when they want to make arguments from it to support their Islamic views and prophets. Very disingenious in my view. Either it is lost and corrupt or it isnt, either it is wrong or it can be used for Prophecy. I personally couldnt view the Old Testament as corrupt in places and then turn to it and say here is parts that I am going to use to build up my Religion that also says the Old Testament is corrupt and wrong.

As for arguments for the need of Blood for Salvation, we can all easily make arguments against any and everything we want, but when the Scripture says without any doubt, Blood is needed for Atonement, others interpretations to nullify this means nothing. All they are doing is trying to find a way to keep their made up Religion in tact and have forgiveness of Sin afforded to them apart from the clear Scripture that says that Blood is needed. What the Law says is what the Law says, God wouldnt put in the Law over and over the need for Blood Atonement if it was something that could be just ignored. From the day Moses was taken out of Egypt until the Jesus came the Law showed Atonement is needed to escape Death. Allah or Yahda cant nullify this fact, yet in Islam there is no account for the entire Culture and Law established by God....

Of course I cannot speak for Allah, nor even for Muslims, for that matter, but it might be because Muslims, generally, don't accept the Old Testament in its present form.
Save needing to believe parts of it successfully predict Muhammad or the rise of Islam o_O

They certainly are not alone in suggesting that the Old Testament has undergone serious revision and redaction. Quite independently of the Quran, the so called Higher Critics and those subscribing to the "Documentary Hypothesis" of the Bible have arrived at similar conclusions.
Do they nullify the overwhelming number of times that Blood is required for Forgiveness in the Law? Does this in anyway nullfiy the actual History of Israel that was built 100% around the Temple and Sacrifices at the Temple? History shows that the God of Abraham and Moses clearly created a system of Worship that mandated the need for Sacrifice for Sin, any ideology that states the Bible has been corrupted (incorrect as they are) does not nullify the fact that Israel existed and Sacrificed hundreds of animals a year for hundreds of years....

am able to arrive at other conclusions, or allow for other possibilities
So what are the other conclusions or possibilities you can reach if we have God give us the Law of Moses that necessitates the need for Blood Atonement and then builds entire Country and Culture that built a Temple where thousands of Animals were Sacrificed for hundreds of years and then have the same God supposedly ignore all of this and say salvation has nothing to do with Blood or Sacrifice and give Salvation by the way Islam does as described in this thread?

I would like to know a rational answer that doesn't boil down to God being a liar and unjust for breaking His own Laws or that Allah isn't the God that created the Law of Moses or was the same God as worshipped by Moses/Israel. The only other conclusion I can see is essentially what you have written that the Law didn't exist or didn't exist in this manner but my rebuttal would be History disproves this so what other logical ideologies can possibly be concluded?
 






DesertRose

Superstar
Joined
May 20, 2017
Messages
5,528
Islam means submission to the will of God.
A muslim is a submitter to the will of God.

Quran (3: 65-68).
O People of the Book (Scriptures), why do you argue about Ibrahim (Abraham) while the Torah and the Gospel were not revealed until after him? Do you not reason? (65)

You are those who have argued about that of which you have (some) knowledge. Why do you argue about that of which you have no knowledge? And Allah knows, while you do not know. (66)

Ibrahim was neither a Jew nor a Nazarethan (Christian), but he was a 'haneef (one inclining toward truth), a Muslim (submitting to Allah). And he was not of the polytheists. (67)

Indeed, the most worthy of belonging to Ibrahim among the people are those who followed him (in submission to Allah) and this Prophet (Muhammed), and those who believe (in his Message). And Allah is the patron of the believers. (68)

Quran: 2: 124-133)
And (mention O Muhammed), when Ibrahim was tried by his Lord with words (commands) and he fulfilled them. (Allah) said: "I will make you a leader for the people." (Ibrahim) said: "And of my descendants?" (Allah) said: "My Covenant does not extend to (include) the oppressors (wrongdoers)." (124)

And We made the House a place of return for the people and (a place of) security. And (O believers), take from the standing place of Ibrahim a place of prayer. And We charged Ibrahim and Isma'il to purify My House for those who perform Tawaf (circumambulation of the Ka'bah), and those who are staying (there) for worship, and those who bow and prostrate (in prayer)." (125)

And Ibrahim said, "My Lord, make this (place) a secure city and provide its people with fruits - whoever of them believes in Allah and the Last Day." (Allah) said. "And whoever disbelieves - I will grant him enjoyment for a little (in this life). Then, I will force him to the punishment of the Fire, and (that is) a wretched fate." (126)

And (mention) when Ibrahim was raising the foundations of the House (the Ka'ba) and Isma'il, (with him, saying), "Our Lord, accept (this) from us. Indeed, You are the Hearing, the Knowing. (127)

Our Lord, and make us Muslims (in submission) to You and from our descendants a Muslim nation (in submission) to You. And show us our rites and accept our repentance. You are the Accepting of repentance, the Merciful. (128)

Our Lord, and send among them a messenger from themselves (Muhammed), who will recite to them Your verses and teach them the Book and wisdom and purify them. Indeed, You are the Exalted in Might, the Wise." (129)

And who would be averse to the religion of Ibrahim except one who makes a fool of himself. And We had chosen him in this world, and in the Hereafter, he will be among the righteous. (130)

When his Lord said to him, "Submit" (to Me), he said "I have submitted (in Islam) to the Lord of the worlds." (131)

And Ibrahim instructed his sons (to submit, to be Muslims) and (so did) Ya'coob, (saying), "O my sons, Allah has chosen for you this religion, so do not die except while you are Muslims." (132)

Or were you witnesses when death approached Ya'coob, when he said to his sons: "What will you worship after me?" They said: "We will worship your God, and (it is) the God of your forefathers, Ibrahim, Ishma'il, and Iss'haq - One God. And we are Muslims (in submission) to Him" (133)

 






Last edited:

rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
3,537
I think it is also important to mention that when we consider the law of Moses including sacrifice. There were prophets after this who had a different message, but not one of them had a different law. The cohesion in regard to this subject is seen throughout the Bible with every prophet and fulfilled in Christ. This is another reason Muhammad is out on an island by himself that no prophet seen anywhere in scripture shares. All the prophets agree on the law. All the apostles agree on the fulfillment of the law through Christ. Muhammad removes the law as though the first five books of scripture were all corrupted and never applied the way they have been for thousands of years of recorded Jewish history beginning before Christ.
 






Top