Marrying your children???

[laloumen]

Hello,

On your site, on the page, http://www.answering-christianity.com/x_rated.htm, you state:

"The Bible in Leviticus 20:21 allows for parents to marry their children!"

And you reference Leviticus 20:21 to support your bold assertion,

If a man marries his brother's wife, it is an act of impurity;
he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless.
(Lev 20:21)

But this says nothing about parents marrying children.  So where do you get the idea that the Bible in Leviticus 20:21 allows parents to marry their children?

Simply put, what you've written is not true and the Quran says, "Truly Allah guides not one who transgresses and lies." Surah 40:28.

You have sinned.  But, to make things very simple, forgiveness is not possible in Islam - God cannot be merciful to you without being unjust.  How can God forgive you for your sin without ignoring your guilt?  And, if God ignores your guilt, God is unjust.  You need a Savior!  You need to turn from your sin to the Lord, because in Him there is forgiveness, through His death on the cross on your behalf.  In this way, God is both merciful and just. 

But, if you persist in rejecting Jesus Christ, you reject the only way of salvation.  And God will not forgive your sins and there is nothing you can do to earn His forgiveness.  In rejecting the only way of salvation, you reject salvation and condemn yourself to an eternity in hell. 

Turn to Christ!!  God will forgive all your sins and you can know the peace that passes all understanding.

In Christ,
Jim

[QuranSearchCom]

On your site, on the page, http://www.answering-christianity.com/x_rated.htm, you state:

"The Bible in Leviticus 20:21 allows for parents to marry their children!"

And you reference Leviticus 20:21 to support your bold assertion,

If a man marries his brother's wife, it is an act of impurity;
he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless.
(Lev 20:21)

But this says nothing about parents marrying children.  So where do you get the idea that the Bible in Leviticus 20:21 allows parents to marry their children?

Peace be upon you Laloumen,

Welcome to the board.  Let us read the verse in question again:

If a man marries has sex with his brother's wife, it is an act of impurity;
he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless.
(Leviticus 20:21)

In the article, http://www.answering-christianity.com/abrogation_in_bible.htm#marriage_with_children, I discussed the following possible meanings for "They will be childless":

1-  Either this is a false man-made scientific statement, like many of the false scientific statements, in the Bible, where they it says that it is biologically and physiologically impossible for the man and the woman in this case to impregnate the woman and have a child.  Visit: http://www.answering-christianity.com/bible_scientific_absurdities.htm.

2-  Or GOD Almighty in this verse rejects or invalidates the parent-child relationship in this situation if it were to happen.

3-  Or it is a false man-made "prophecy" and lie on GOD Almighty's Holy Mouth by giving a promise that the man and the woman will become physiologically barren, - unable to ever produce children ever again, - whether with each others or seperate with other people.

If interpretation or meaning #2 is valid, then this means that nothing on earth could stop the biological father from marrying his biological daughter, or for the biological mother to marry her biological son - should she divorce or become a widow.

You have sinned.  But, to make things very simple, forgiveness is not possible in Islam

I have neither sinned, nor is your knowledge about Islam correct.  Go read the Glorious Quran and see the 100s of Noble Verses that speak about GOD Almighty's Forgiveness and Mercy.  Visit: http://www.answering-christianity.com/mercy_of_allah.htm.

You need a Savior!  You need to turn from your sin to the Lord, because in Him there is forgiveness, through His death on the cross on your behalf.  In this way, God is both merciful and just.

Watch Dr. Zakir Naik's debate with Pastor Rukni on "Did Jesus Christ ACTUALLY DIE on the cross?".  Dr. Zakir thoroughly demonstrated and proved from the Bible's New Testament that Christ never died on the cross, nor was he ever resurrected.  In fact, the word resurrected was never even mentioned in the NT.  It says Jesus was raised, which means he never died.  Watch the debate and see all of the NT verses that Dr. Zakir Naik gave that thoroughly demonstrated and proved this:


http://www.answering-christianity.com/was_jesus_crucified_debate_between_dr_zakir_naik_and_pastor_rukni.wmv

But, if you persist in rejecting Jesus Christ, you reject the only way of salvation.  And God will not forgive your sins and there is nothing you can do to earn His forgiveness.  In rejecting the only way of salvation, you reject salvation and condemn yourself to an eternity in hell.

I am afraid you're the one who rejects GOD Almighty and His servant and creation and Prophet and Messenger, Jesus Christ, with your idol worship of Jesus and polytheism.  Visit: http://www.answering-christianity.com/at.htm.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

[laloumen]

Your logic leaves a great deal to be desired.  You leap from point to point without any logical connection whatsoever.

There are two possibilities for the judgment in this case:

1. Either by the judgment of God they shall have no children, or
2. their spurious offspring shall be denied by human authority the ordinary privileges of children in Israel.

Your rejection of #3 by claiming that it is a "false man-made prophecy" is simply assuming the point in question, whereas the verse itself could very well mean that it is God's judgment on that couple that they will have no children together.  It doesn't say that they couldn't have children from other people.  At least, not unless you presuppose what you want to prove - which is what you've done.

But then, your further conclusion "this means that nothing on earth could stop the biological father from marrying his biological daughter" is not only irrelevant (i.e. the conclusion is not based on the premises in any way at all) it is beyond all rationality to infer that this means "the Bible allows parents to marry their children."   

And, regarding the Qu'ran speaking of forgiveness - you miss my point.  I didn't say the Qu'ran didn't speak of forgiveness.  I said that under the doctrines of Islam, God could not be both righteous and merciful because righteousness requires that sins be punished.  And when God forgives, in your view, he is not punishing sin, hence he is not righteous.  Thus, your view of God is impossible.  Islam is a false religion because the most fundamental facts about God cannot be upheld - in fact are found to be contradictory under Islam's view of God.

Have a nice day.

In Christ,
Jim

[laloumen]

"Dr. Zakir thoroughly demonstrated and proved from the Bible's New Testament that Christ never died on the cross, nor was he ever resurrected.  In fact, the word resurrected was never even mentioned in the NT.  It says Jesus was raised, which means he never died.  Watch the debate and see all of the NT verses that Dr. Zakir Naik gave that thoroughly demonstrated and proved this:"

You're kidding right?  You're going to prove from the NT that Christ was not raised from the dead?  LOL.  Is that what passes for argumentation in Islam?  I'd be ashamed to post that video on my web site if I were you.  It is laughable.

To deal with your points in reverse order: how did you come to **make up** the idea that 'raised' means that Jesus never died? 

Here are some examples where 'raised' is explicitly placed in conjunction with 'died' or 'dead' to show that your idea is untenable:

And as they were coming down the mountain,
Jesus commanded them, "Tell no one the vision,
until the Son of Man is **raised from the dead**."
(Matthew 17:9)

Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised
(Romans 8:34)

He [Jesus Christ] was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was
made manifest in the last times for the sake of you who through him are
believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory,
so that your faith and hope are in God.
(1 Peter 1:20-21)

There are dozens of such places which demonstrate the completely arbitrary assertion you are making.  Please explain how 'raised' means that Jesus never died.  That ought to be interesting!!

But as for your initial point, that 'resurrected' is never used in the NT, it is a red herring.  It is a misleading assertion.  The word 'resurrection' is used in many places.  Why not mention those places?

Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God,
which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son,
who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God
in power according to the Spirit of holiness by **his resurrection from the dead**,
Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about
the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations,
(Romans 1:1-5)

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to
his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope
through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead
(1 Peter 1:3)

Wow, I wish I could have debated that man.  It would not have been a pleasant experience for him.


In Christ,
Jim

[QuranSearchCom]

Your rejection of #3 by claiming that it is a "false man-made prophecy" is simply assuming the point in question, whereas the verse itself could very well mean that it is God's judgment on that couple that they will have no children together.  It doesn't say that they couldn't have children from other people.  At least, not unless you presuppose what you want to prove - which is what you've done.

I live in the USA.  The Jewish community, nation wide, is among the most sexually open ones in the nation.  It's so bad here that Rabbies are said to have secret group sex with many of their followers.  Now, I also grant you that there are many pious Jews in the USA and around the world.

But let's be real here.  You mean to tell me that if Kim Kardashian, a former porn star and a Jew who was made famous in the US' media, slept with her sister's husband, then she'll become barren?  Or if her brother sleeps with her other brother's wife, then they'll become barren?  Leviticus 20:21 is not just speaking about GOD-fearing Jews here.  It's also speaking about loose and ill-raised ones like the example I gave.  It's talking about if a brother has sex with his brother's wife.  This is something that is never approved for pious people to do, as you know.

As to Jesus resurrecting from the dead point, again, please do listen to the debate.  Dr. Zakir proved that the translation is actually "raised", and the word doesn't mean coming back to life from death.  Even the pastor that was debating him was silenced on many of the points that were given by Dr. Zakir Naik.  It's not as simple and shallow as you think.  Like you, I had my doubts, but when I saw the debate, I was really amazed.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

[laloumen]

The verse doesn't say anything about barrenness in general.  It speaks specifically of the possibility of children for those two sinners.  God's judgment is that they will not have children from their relationship.  I'm not sure why you're harping on this text so much.  It's not complicated.  Even if you could demonstrate a case in which their was such a union producing children, besides merely **supposing** what you want to prove, it doesn't mean anything because the verse could just mean that the children would not be counted as children under the Mosaic law.

But, that God does render such judgment is clear from Scripture.  For instance, David's child with Bathsheba was not permitted to live:

But now he is dead. Why should I fast? Can I bring him back again?
I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.
(2 Samuel 12:23)

and the woman of Thyatira spoken of in Rev 2,

and I will strike her children dead.
(Revelation 2:23)

This has nothing to do with becoming barren, necessarily.  There are other ways to be childless, as is seen above. 

But it is clear that this verse doesn't even remotely support your assertion, that "the Bible in Leviticus 20:21 allows for parents to marry their children!"  Your logic is simply atrocious - actually, no, there is no logic in what you say - you simply make an assertion with no support at all. 

I don't know if you read Greek but I do - or if you simply naively accept what you hear but I don't.  The word ἐγείρω transliterated EGEIRW can mean to resurrect, as in the following verses: Mat 11:11, Mat 12:42, Mat 14:2, Mat 24:7, Mat 24:11, Mat 26:32, Mat 26:46, Mat 27:63, Mat 27:64, Mat 28:6, Mat 28:7, Mar 4:27, Mar 6:14, Mar 6:16, Mar 10:49, Mar 12:26, Mar 13:8, Mar 13:22, Mar 14:28, Mar 14:42, Mar 16:6, Mar 16:14, Luk 5:23, Luk 6:8, Luk 7:16, Luk 9:7, Luk 11:8, Luk 11:31, Luk 13:25, Luk 21:10, Luk 24:6, Luk 24:34, Joh 2:22, Joh 5:8, Joh 13:4, Joh 21:14, Rom 8:34, 1Co 15:4, 1Co 15:12, 1Co 15:13, 1Co 15:14, 1Co 15:15, 1Co 15:16, 1Co 15:20, 1Co 15:29, 1Co 15:32, 2Co 5:15, Rev 11:1.

In addition to EGEIRW, the Bible commonly uses ANASTASIS in such phrases as ἀναστασις ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν (ANASTASIS EK TWN NEKRWN) resurrection from the dead, and speaks of Christ's resurrection from the dead.  For instance,

And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the
resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all.
(Acts 4:33 ESV)

In addition, the word EGEIRW and ANASTATIS are used synonymously, as in the following:

Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead,
how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
(1 Cor 15:12)

The logic is clear - that if Christ is raised from the dead, then there is a resurrection from the dead.  This statement requires that being raised from the dead is the same as the resurrection from the dead.  So, there is simply no force whatsoever to Dr. Zakir's ludicrous attempts to prove his point from the Bible.  It is a laughable argument which deceives only those who do not take the time to think for themselves.

And where is your response about the impossibility of God being both righteous and merciful in Islam?  It is a crushing fact, no doubt, but I had hoped you would pose some sort of defense.

In Christ,
Jim Beale

[Egyptian]

And where is your response about the impossibility of God being both righteous and merciful in Islam?  It is a crushing fact, no doubt, but I had hoped you would pose some sort of defense.

In Christ,
Jim Beale

dear Jim , that point "God being both just and merciful " has nothing to do with the thread topic .... so plz start a new thread if you wish, on that matter ....
and I will be there to show you how you poisoned your own well.

regards

[Antiaparteid]

All I can say is... This thread is sinful. It just is. How can can you swist the bible like that? How can you draw such far-fetched conclusions? No wonder Christians also say disgusting things about islam and muslims! They learn from the best. Congrantulations. You've really managed to make things worse between muslims and christians. You've totally destroyed your credibility. I don't think many people will take your site "answering christianity" seriously. It's just getting ridiculous.

[QuranSearchCom]

Peace be upon you Jim,

Do you honestly believe that putting someone like Jesus Christ on the cross for 3 hours only, - a person who was able to fast for 40 days without eating anything, - and expect him to die?

And again, the NT is clear that Christ was ALIVE in the tomb.  Listen to the debate, and please respond to Dr. Zakir Naik's points, directly.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

[m2ariman]

All I can say is... This thread is sinful. It just is. How can can you swist the bible like that? How can you draw such far-fetched conclusions? No wonder Christians also say disgusting things about islam and muslims! They learn from the best. Congrantulations. You've really managed to make things worse between muslims and christians. You've totally destroyed your credibility. I don't think many people will take your site "answering christianity" seriously. It's just getting ridiculous.

Learn history. Who started it first?

-----

"But, to make things very simple, forgiveness is not possible in Islam - God cannot be merciful to you without being unjust.  How can God forgive you for your sin without ignoring your guilt?  And, if God ignores your guilt, God is unjust.  You need a Savior!  You need to turn from your sin to the Lord, because in Him there is forgiveness, through His death on the cross on your behalf.  In this way, God is both merciful and just.  "

"God cannot be merciful without being unjust." Says who? Are you God?
The fact that you are alive even after making that statement is the whole reason why God is merciful.

How can a God who sent his only son to commit suicide and yet cried for his father's help be a merciful and just God?

You call killing your Only PIOUS son for the sake of other SINFUL people just and merciful?

Have you no sense?

Why do God need a son anyways?

What guilt? You might wanna start a new thread on this.

-----

If a man marries his brother's wife, it is an act of impurity;
he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless.
(Lev 20:21)

Read Deut Chpt 25.

 "If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. 6 The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.

7 However, if a man does not want to marry his brother’s wife, she shall go to the elders at the town gate and say, “My husband’s brother refuses to carry on his brother’s name in Israel. He will not fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to me.” 8 Then the elders of his town shall summon him and talk to him. If he persists in saying, “I do not want to marry her,” 9 his brother’s widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, take off one of his sandals, spit in his face and say, “This is what is done to the man who will not build up his brother’s family line.” 10 That man’s line shall be known in Israel as The Family of the Unsandaled."

READ THIS TOO!

Also from Deut. Chpt 25

"11 If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, 12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity."

Speaks for itself.

So, should the brother marry his brother's wife or not?

[laloumen]

Peace be upon you Jim,

Do you honestly believe that putting someone like Jesus Christ on the cross for 3 hours only, - a person who was able to fast for 40 days without eating anything, - and expect him to die?

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

First, you need to get your facts straight!  Jesus was not only three hours on the cross.  Mark wrote:

And it was the third hour when they crucified him.
(Mark 15:25)

And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice,
"Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?" which means, "My God,
my God, why have you forsaken me?'
(Mark 15:34)

That is six hours.  And that was on top of the scourging and other abuse which obviously caused Him to lose a tremendous amount of blood.

Isaiah wrote of Him (about 700 years earlier) that

his appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance,
and his form beyond that of the children of mankind—
(Isaiah 52:14)

The type of beating to which Jesus was subjected was so severe that at times people would not even live through it to be crucified.  But Jesus did survive, as we read, and did go on to be crucified, although he collapsed while carrying the cross from the beating and the loss of blood. 

You haven't apparently bothered to do any independent thinking on this - I suppose you're just parroting what others have said without really thinking.  Be that as it may, I still need to answer your question/objection. 

The simple fact is that the Lord Jesus **willingly** laid down His life --

No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord.
I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again.
This charge I have received from my Father.
(John 10:18)

When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, "It is finished,"
and he bowed his head and **gave up his spirit**.
(John 19:30)

Why should He suffer beyond what was necessary to complete the work set out for Him to accomplish?  For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.  But those who do not believe are condemned already because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

He was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed.
(Isaiah 53:5)

He was not pierced for His own transgressions, as He had committed none.  He was not crushed for His own iniquities, as He had none.  He was crushed for the transgressions of others, as a Substitute - and when the penalty for those transgressions had been fully borne, He cried "it is finished" and gave up His Spirit.  Should he suffer needlessly?  So when His work was accomplished, He allowed Himself to die.

Peace be upon you Jim,

And again, the NT is clear that Christ was ALIVE in the tomb.  Listen to the debate, and please respond to Dr. Zakir Naik's points, directly.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

First, the NT is clear that He died and was dead when He was laid in the tomb.  If you think that those Roman soldiers couldn't tell when a person was dead, you're sadly mistaken.  How many deaths had they witnessed do you suppose?  Hundreds?  Thousands?  They were perfectly capable of telling when a man was dead, as we read:

But when they came to Jesus and saw that **he was already dead**,
they did not break his legs. But one of the soldiers pierced his side
with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water.
(John 19:33-34)

The piercing of the side of Christ obviously penetrated to the heart and the fact that water and blood came out is clear proof that he was already dead. 

But, in saying that the NT is clear that Christ was ALIVE in the tomb is patently ridiculous.  I suppose you will bring up Jonah at this point?  I will just be blunt - Dr. Naik's arguments are genuinely dumb.  But, if you're so keen on trying to prove your point, feel free to post what you think is the best of his arguments and we can discuss it.


In Christ,
Jim

[laloumen]

"But, to make things very simple, forgiveness is not possible in Islam - God cannot be merciful to you without being unjust.  How can God forgive you for your sin without ignoring your guilt?  And, if God ignores your guilt, God is unjust.  You need a Savior!  You need to turn from your sin to the Lord, because in Him there is forgiveness, through His death on the cross on your behalf.  In this way, God is both merciful and just.  "

"God cannot be merciful without being unjust." Says who? Are you God?

The fact that you are alive even after making that statement is the whole reason why God is merciful.

The problem is that in order for Allah to remain perfectly just and righteous, sin must be punished. If all men are sinful and have committed sin, and Allah is infinite and perfect in his attributes, there can be no mercy. For mercy then would function as a negation of his justice. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that in order for Allah to be both merciful (in the Quranic sense of ignoring the sins of some) and just, he must be an arbitrary and changing being - which is to say, that God, in the Islamic conception of God, does not and cannot exist.

Christianity does not have this problem.

For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.

This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had
passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time,
so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
(Romans 3:22-26)

Here is no arbitrary God!  Here is a God who is righteous and merciful.  He is **both** JUST and the ONE WHO JUSTIFIES those who place their trust in Christ. 

Here is reason to trust in Christ!!

Think about it.

In Christ,
Jim

[Final Overture]

Wow, really? Let's see:
Psalms 145:8 The LORD is gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love.
2 Thessalonians 1:6 God is just
And
Isaiah 6:6 Then one of the seraphim flew to me, having in his hand a burning coal that he had taken with tongs from the altar. 7 And he touched my mouth and said: “Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin atoned for.”

[laloumen]

Wow, really? Let's see:
Psalms 145:8 The LORD is gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love.
2 Thessalonians 1:6 God is just
And
Isaiah 6:6 Then one of the seraphim flew to me, having in his hand a burning coal that he had taken with tongs from the altar. 7 And he touched my mouth and said: "Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin atoned for".

It's not clear what your point is.  The first two verses are clear and simple but the latter verse clearly shows the need of an atonement. 

You know that he [Jesus Christ] appeared in order
to take away sins, and in him there is no sin.
(1 John 3:5)

The types and foreshadowings of the OT pointed to, looked forward to, the work of Christ.  Those things did not have efficacy in and of themselves but only by virtue of their connection with Christ's sacrifice. 

Then one of the seraphim flew to me,
having in his hand a burning coal that he
had taken with tongs from the altar.
And he touched my mouth and said:
"Behold, this has touched your lips;
your guilt is taken away, and your sin atoned for."
(Isaiah 6:6-7)

This does not mean, that the fire from the altar had any physical effect to purify him from sin, but that it was emblematic of such a purifying; and probably, also, the fact that it was taken from the altar of sacrifice, was to him an indication that he was pardoned through the “atonement,” or expiation there made. The Jews expected pardon in no other mode than by sacrifice; and the offering on their altar pointed to the great sacrifice which was to be made on the cross for the sins of human beings. There is here a beautiful union of the truths respecting sacrifice. The great doctrine is presented that it is only by sacrifice that sin can be pardoned; and the Messiah, the sacrifice himself, is exhibited as issuing the commission to Isaiah to go and declare his message to people.

And, as a matter of interest to Muslims, John writes that what Isaiah saw was the preincarnate Christ:

Isaiah said these things because he saw his [Christ's] glory and spoke of him.
(John 12:41)

where Isaiah wrote:

And I said: "Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips,
and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have
seen the King, the LORD of hosts!"
(Isaiah 6:5 ESV)

Thus, here is a declaration of the Deity of Christ - Isaiah calls him Jehovah and John says that Isaiah saw Christ's glory and spoke of HIM.  Thus, the efficacy of the burning coal is in the certain foreknowledge of Christ's own work by Him.

This is all straightforward.  However, it merely points out the utter lack of an atonement in Islam.  And, without an atonement, Allah cannot be righteous under Islam and forgive sins.  In order to be merciful, Allah must simply **ignore** the guilt of the guilty, and this makes Allah unrighteous in being merciful.  Thus, the Islamic view of God is false.

In Christ,
Jim

[Final Overture]

Wow, really? Let's see:
Psalms 145:8 The LORD is gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love.
2 Thessalonians 1:6 God is just
And
Isaiah 6:6 Then one of the seraphim flew to me, having in his hand a burning coal that he had taken with tongs from the altar. 7 And he touched my mouth and said: "Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin atoned for".

It's not clear what your point is.  The first two verses are clear and simple but the latter verse clearly shows the need of an atonement. 

You know that he [Jesus Christ] appeared in order
to take away sins, and in him there is no sin.
(1 John 3:5)

The types and foreshadowings of the OT pointed to, looked forward to, the work of Christ.  Those things did not have efficacy in and of themselves but only by virtue of their connection with Christ's sacrifice. 

Then one of the seraphim flew to me,
having in his hand a burning coal that he
had taken with tongs from the altar.
And he touched my mouth and said:
"Behold, this has touched your lips;
your guilt is taken away, and your sin atoned for."
(Isaiah 6:6-7)

This does not mean, that the fire from the altar had any physical effect to purify him from sin, but that it was emblematic of such a purifying; and probably, also, the fact that it was taken from the altar of sacrifice, was to him an indication that he was pardoned through the “atonement,” or expiation there made. The Jews expected pardon in no other mode than by sacrifice; and the offering on their altar pointed to the great sacrifice which was to be made on the cross for the sins of human beings. There is here a beautiful union of the truths respecting sacrifice. The great doctrine is presented that it is only by sacrifice that sin can be pardoned; and the Messiah, the sacrifice himself, is exhibited as issuing the commission to Isaiah to go and declare his message to people.

And, as a matter of interest to Muslims, John writes that what Isaiah saw was the preincarnate Christ:

Isaiah said these things because he saw his [Christ's] glory and spoke of him.
(John 12:41)

where Isaiah wrote:

And I said: "Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips,
and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have
seen the King, the LORD of hosts!"
(Isaiah 6:5 ESV)

Thus, here is a declaration of the Deity of Christ - Isaiah calls him Jehovah and John says that Isaiah saw Christ's glory and spoke of HIM.  Thus, the efficacy of the burning coal is in the certain foreknowledge of Christ's own work by Him.

This is all straightforward.  However, it merely points out the utter lack of an atonement in Islam.  And, without an atonement, Allah cannot be righteous under Islam and forgive sins.  In order to be merciful, Allah must simply **ignore** the guilt of the guilty, and this makes Allah unrighteous in being merciful.  Thus, the Islamic view of God is false.

In Christ,
Jim

It's not clear what your point is.

Some sins were forgiven, even though there was no savior.

You know that he [Jesus Christ] appeared in order
to take away sins, and in him there is no sin.
(1 John 3:5)

Why did he break the Sabbath day, then?

And I said: "Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips,
and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have
seen the King, the LORD of hosts!"
(Isaiah 6:5 ESV)

Thus, here is a declaration of the Deity of Christ - Isaiah calls him Jehovah and John says that Isaiah saw Christ's glory and spoke of HIM.  Thus, the efficacy of the burning coal is in the certain foreknowledge of Christ's own work by Him.

Hm, really? I don't find Jesus there. Look closely: "for my eyes have
seen the King, the LORD of hosts!"
And the very first verse: In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord, high and exalted, seated on a throne; and the train of his robe filled the temple.
John lived at the time of King Uzziah?

[laloumen]

It's not clear what your point is.

Some sins were forgiven, even though there was no savior.

There was a Savior.  He was the one sitting on the throne.  He is eternal and there is no future nor past to Him.  His death on the cross was before Him and He applied the benefit of that to Isaiah. 

You know that he [Jesus Christ] appeared in order
to take away sins, and in him there is no sin.
(1 John 3:5)

Why did he break the Sabbath day, then?

He didn't break the Sabbath.  He corrected the misunderstanding of the Jews.

And I said: "Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips,
and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have
seen the King, the LORD of hosts!"
(Isaiah 6:5 ESV)

Thus, here is a declaration of the Deity of Christ - Isaiah calls him Jehovah and John says that Isaiah saw Christ's glory and spoke of HIM.  Thus, the efficacy of the burning coal is in the certain foreknowledge of Christ's own work by Him.

Hm, really? I don't find Jesus there. Look closely: "for my eyes have
seen the King, the LORD of hosts!"

Look closer: Jesus is King of kings and Lord of Lords.  (Rev 19:16)

Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."
(John 8:58)

And the very first verse: In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord, high and exalted, seated on a throne; and the train of his robe filled the temple.
John lived at the time of King Uzziah?

Look again: Isaiah saw the Lord in glory, seated on a throne.  John tells us that Isaiah saw the glory of Christ, and wrote of Him. (John 12:41). 


In Christ,
Jim

[Final Overture]

There was a Savior.  He was the one sitting on the throne.  He is eternal and there is no future nor past to Him.  His death on the cross was before Him and He applied the benefit of that to Isaiah. 

If He is eternal, how could He die?

Look closer: Jesus is King of kings and Lord of Lords.  (Rev 19:16)

Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."
(John 8:58)

One can easily prove that he is not the King of Kings, but later.
What do you think "before Abraham was, I am" means? You think that means he is God?

Look again: Isaiah saw the Lord in glory, seated on a throne.  John tells us that Isaiah saw the glory of Christ, and wrote of Him. (John 12:41).

So, you compare Isaiah 6:1 to John 12:41?


Answer on these:
Psalms 97:5 «The mountains melt like wax before the LORD»
Amos 9:5 «The Lord GOD of hosts, he who touches the earth and it melts»
Nahum 1:5 «The mountains quake before him; the hills melt; the earth heaves before him, the world and all who dwell in it.»

Did mountains or hills melt before Jesus?

[laloumen]

There was a Savior.  He was the one sitting on the throne.  He is eternal and there is no future nor past to Him.  His death on the cross was before Him and He applied the benefit of that to Isaiah. 

If He is eternal, how could He die?

Do you really not understand?  Maybe these will help:

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign.
Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
and shall call his name Immanuel [God with us].
(Isaiah 7:14)

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

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,
and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only
Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
(John 1:14)

Look closer: Jesus is King of kings and Lord of Lords.  (Rev 19:16)

Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."
(John 8:58)

One can easily prove that he is not the King of Kings, but later.
What do you think "before Abraham was, I am" means? You think that means he is God?

It is an unambiguous reference to

And he said, "Say this to the people of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'"
(Exodus 3:14)

Look again: Isaiah saw the Lord in glory, seated on a throne.  John tells us that Isaiah saw the glory of Christ, and wrote of Him. (John 12:41).

So, you compare Isaiah 6:1 to John 12:41?

Of course, the comparison is unavoidable. 

Answer on these:
Psalms 97:5 «The mountains melt like wax before the LORD»
Amos 9:5 «The Lord GOD of hosts, he who touches the earth and it melts»
Nahum 1:5 «The mountains quake before him; the hills melt; the earth heaves before him, the world and all who dwell in it.»

Did mountains or hills melt before Jesus?

Huh?  Why should they?  His purpose in coming wasn't to destroy but to save:

For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world,
but in order that the world might be saved through him.
(John 3:17)

However, the mountains and indeed all the earth will melt before Him when He returns to judge the world,

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief,
and then the heavens will pass away with a roar,
and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved,
and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.
(2 Peter 3:10)

That day is coming, when every knee will be forced to bow before Him and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.

For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; for it is written,
"As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me,
and every tongue shall confess to God."
(Romans 14:10-11)

at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth
and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
(Philippians 2:9-11)

Declare and present your case;
   let them take counsel together!
Who told this long ago?
   Who declared it of old?
Was it not I, the LORD?
   And there is no other god besides me,
a righteous God and a Savior;
   there is none besides me.
"Turn to me and be saved,
   all the ends of the earth!
For I am God, and there is no other.
By myself I have sworn;
   from my mouth has gone out in righteousness
   a word that shall not return:
'To me every knee shall bow,
   every tongue shall swear allegiance.'"
(Isaiah 45:21-23)

And on that day, the mountains will melt and the hills be burned up,

when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty
angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do
not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of
our Lord Jesus.
(2 Thessalonians 1:7-8)

That day is coming, make no mistake about it.  And all those who reject the Lord Jesus Christ will be cast into hell for all eternity.

In Christ,
Jim

[Egyptian]

Dear laloumen ,

First: I invited you to debate "divine justice vs mercy" ,in a separate thread ,in order to respect the readers who don't like a mess of ideas in one thread, but you ignored the invitation !
I renew my invitation to have civil debate , plz, stop your off-topic mess ,and start a new thread.

second: you wrote :

Do you really not understand?  Maybe these will help:Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel [God with us].(Isaiah 7:14)

Have you bothered reading the context?  that is the context of Isaiah 7:Thomas Paine explained it well:

"On the death of Solomon the Jewish nation split into two monarchies: one called the kingdom of Judah, the capital of which was Jerusalem: the other the kingdom of Israel, the capital of which was Samaria. The kingdom of Judah followed the line of David, and the kingdom of Israel that of Saul; and these two rival monarchies frequently carried on fierce wars against each other.
At the time Ahaz was king of Judah, which was in the time of Isaiah, Pekah was king of Israel; and Pekah joined himself to Rezin, king of Syria, to make war against Ahaz, king of Judah; and these two kings marched a confederated and powerful army against Jerusalem. Ahaz and his people became alarmed at their danger, and "their hearts were moved as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind." Isaiah vii. 3.In this perilous situation of things, Isaiah addresses himself to Ahaz, and assures him in the name of the Lord, (the cant phrase of all the prophets,) that these two kings should not succeed against him; and to assure him that this should be the case, tells Ahaz to ask a sign of the Lord. This Ahaz declined doing, giving as a reason, that he would not tempt the Lord; upon which Isaiah, who pretends to be sent from God, says, ver. 14, "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign, behold the virgin shall conceive and bear a son -- Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil and chose the good -- For before the child shall know to refuse the evil and chose the good, the land which thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings" -- meaning the king of Israel and the king of Syria who were marching against him.Here then is the sign, which was to be the birth of a child, and that child a son; and here also is the time limited for the accomplishment of the sign, namely, before the child should know to refuse the evil and chose the good.The thing, therefore, to be a sign of success to Ahaz, must be something that would take place before the event of the battle then pending between him and the two kings could be known. A thing to be a sign must precede the thing signified. The sign of rain must be before the rain.It would have been mockery and insulting nonsense for Isaiah to have assured Ahaz as a sign that these two kings should not prevail against him, that a child should be born seven hundred years after he was dead, and that before the child so born should know to refuse the evil and choose the good, he, Ahaz, should be delivered from the danger he was then immediately threatened with."

There is nothing about Jesus there, my friend.  you have been victimized by the Sunday church preaching that such passages "and others" were predicting Jesus....

more exposition on such so called virgin birth prophecy and the all of the conjectural messianic prophecies are soon to be refuted and dashed to pieces in my thread :

http://www.answering-christianity.com/blog/index.php/topic,27.0.html

I noted that you and Bro Final Overture beginning the futile debate "is the trinity biblical" , and so I feel you need both to read the following thread ,in order to save your times for a fruitful debate....


http://www.answering-christianity.com/blog/index.php/topic,71.0.html


peace for all.

[Final Overture]

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign.
Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
and shall call his name Immanuel [God with us].
(Isaiah 7:14)

Immanuel - God with us. And?
Elisha - God is my salvation
Eliakim - God rises
Eleazar - My God has helped
Eliab - My God is Father
Gedaliah - God is great
Ishmael - God hears

And he said, "Say this to the people of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'"

Well...
Exodus 3:14: I AM (ὁ ὤν) has sent..
John 8:58: Before Abraham was, I am (ἐγώ εἰμι)...
Different phrase.

Huh?  Why should they?

Because they do? Psalms 97:5 The mountains melt like wax before the LORD (Judges 5:5)

However, the mountains and indeed all the earth will melt before Him when He returns to judge the world,

So, that's when he will become God?

[laloumen]

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign.
Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
and shall call his name Immanuel [God with us].
(Isaiah 7:14)

Immanuel - God with us. And?
Elisha - God is my salvation
Eliakim - God rises
Eleazar - My God has helped
Eliab - My God is Father
Gedaliah - God is great
Ishmael - God hears

Umm, ok, so the point escapes you completely?  Perhaps the following verse will be helpful:

For to us a child is born,
   to us a son is given;
and the government shall be upon his shoulder,
   and his name shall be called
Wonderful Counselor, **Mighty God**,
   Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
(Isaiah 9:6)

Your original question was, "if He was eternal, how could He die?"  To which the obvious answer is, He couldn't without taking to Himself a human nature.  That is why He, the Creator of the entire universe, joined Himself to a human nature, in order to become like us in every respect - yet without sin - in order to die for the sins of a people.  And, in his humanity clearly He could die.  That's not hard to understand, is it??

And he said, "Say this to the people of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'"

Well...
Exodus 3:14: I AM (ὁ ὤν) has sent..
John 8:58: Before Abraham was, I am (ἐγώ εἰμι)...
Different phrase.

Not necessarily - considering that Jesus wasn't speaking Greek with the Jewish leaders and neither was the OT written in Greek originally. 

In your refusal, though, to see the relation of John 8:58 to Exodus 3:14, you miss the obvious - that Jesus claimed to exist before Abraham was born.  And, given that the assertion is in the present tense the significance of it ought to be clear to you (since you apparently know Greek).  Given that the Aktionsart of the Greek present tense is not primarily a time reference but a matter of continuation, the proposition is a claim to perpetual life - of an eternal existence - exactly as Exodus 3:14.  If you have enough Greek to understand that, then your objection is basically futile, since the idea of both verses is of continuous essential existence.  Thus, even though you may quibble at the apparent formal difference in the verses in the Greek, the underlying essential identity is impossible to refute.  However, you don't even seem to have grasped the first point, that Jesus claimed to have a perpetual life, for whatever reason. ;-)

Huh?  Why should they?

Because they do? Psalms 97:5 The mountains melt like wax before the LORD (Judges 5:5)

However, the mountains and indeed all the earth will melt before Him when He returns to judge the world,

So, that's when he will become God?

Uhh, no.  You're too clever by half. 

In Christ,
Jim

[laloumen]

second: you wrote :

Do you really not understand?  Maybe these will help:Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel [God with us].(Isaiah 7:14)

Have you bothered reading the context?  that is the context of Isaiah 7:Thomas Paine explained it well:

"On the death of Solomon the Jewish nation split into two monarchies: one called the kingdom of Judah, the capital of which was Jerusalem: the other the kingdom of Israel, the capital of which was Samaria. The kingdom of Judah followed the line of David, and the kingdom of Israel that of Saul; and these two rival monarchies frequently carried on fierce wars against each other.
At the time Ahaz was king of Judah, which was in the time of Isaiah, Pekah was king of Israel; and Pekah joined himself to Rezin, king of Syria, to make war against Ahaz, king of Judah; and these two kings marched a confederated and powerful army against Jerusalem. Ahaz and his people became alarmed at their danger, and "their hearts were moved as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind." Isaiah vii. 3.In this perilous situation of things, Isaiah addresses himself to Ahaz, and assures him in the name of the Lord, (the cant phrase of all the prophets,) that these two kings should not succeed against him; and to assure him that this should be the case, tells Ahaz to ask a sign of the Lord. This Ahaz declined doing, giving as a reason, that he would not tempt the Lord; upon which Isaiah, who pretends to be sent from God, says, ver. 14, "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign, behold the virgin shall conceive and bear a son -- Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil and chose the good -- For before the child shall know to refuse the evil and chose the good, the land which thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings" -- meaning the king of Israel and the king of Syria who were marching against him.Here then is the sign, which was to be the birth of a child, and that child a son; and here also is the time limited for the accomplishment of the sign, namely, before the child should know to refuse the evil and chose the good.The thing, therefore, to be a sign of success to Ahaz, must be something that would take place before the event of the battle then pending between him and the two kings could be known. A thing to be a sign must precede the thing signified. The sign of rain must be before the rain.It would have been mockery and insulting nonsense for Isaiah to have assured Ahaz as a sign that these two kings should not prevail against him, that a child should be born seven hundred years after he was dead, and that before the child so born should know to refuse the evil and choose the good, he, Ahaz, should be delivered from the danger he was then immediately threatened with."

There is nothing about Jesus there, my friend.  you have been victimized by the Sunday church preaching that such passages "and others" were predicting Jesus....

more exposition on such so called virgin birth prophecy and the all of the conjectural messianic prophecies are soon to be refuted and dashed to pieces in my thread :

http://www.answering-christianity.com/blog/index.php/topic,27.0.html

Wow, you quoted Thomas Paine, the well-known Biblical scholar er Deist er infidel...lol. 

There is certainly a shadow or type involved in the prophecy to Ahaz.  However, language is employed which, while being partially applicable to the immediate event, receives its fullest, most appropriate, and exhaustive accomplishment in Messianic events.  What Paine ignores is the merely limited sense in which the prophecy is fulfilled in Ahaz' time which cannot possibly exhaust the significance.  Paine, like you, accepts the shadow of a thing but then denies the thing which casts the shadow.

Sunday church preaching?  Maybe you ought to read the NT?

Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way.
When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph,
before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.
[...]
All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:
"Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
   and they shall call his name Immanuel”
(which means, God with us).
(Matthew 1:18,22-23)

So, given that Matthew explains Isaiah's prophecy in terms of the birth of Jesus, why would anyone accept that you and/or Thomas Paine know better??  Why should anyone believe you??

And, I just read through your "exposition" - you really give yourself far too much credit.  "Dashed to pieces" ??  Seriously??  I didn't see anything that made so much as a scratch. 

I noted that you and Bro Final Overture beginning the futile debate "is the trinity biblical" , and so I feel you need both to read the following thread ,in order to save your times for a fruitful debate....

http://www.answering-christianity.com/blog/index.php/topic,71.0.html

peace for all.

Yeah, I read that one too.  You've got a lot to learn.  There is much more to the question that you realize.  You want to accept parts of the Bible, to pick and choose which ones suit you - To take your Jeffersonian scissors and make something in your own image, after your own likeness.  But in trying to do this, you've already ended up as a wreck alongside the path.

You ought to take your own advice - in accepting the words of Isaiah but giving them an impossible twist, you've already doomed your effort to failure.  As I said above, you've acknowledged the shadow of a thing but denied the thing which casts the shadow. 


In Christ,
Jim

[Abd-Al-Rahman]

No comment on the current main issues being debated here, however it's about what now? The third time?

First: I invited you to debate "divine justice vs mercy" ,in a separate thread ,in order to respect the readers who don't like a mess of ideas in one thread, but you ignored the invitation !
I renew my invitation to have civil debate , plz, stop your off-topic mess ,and start a new thread.

You seemed pretty eager and ready, as recently as of today in the morning, to continue arguing more in-depth your case for the impossibility of  God, in the Islamic concept of Him that is, to be both righteous and merciful at the same time, since you of course know Him inside out and how his righteous mercy has to completely be dependent upon and validated by the blood of another human (god himself or his son depending on who is referencing that story) being shed on a cross after being sorely humiliated and so forth.

Good, truly my heart is on the verge of tearing up from how merciful, but especially, especially I said, righteous all of this sounds. Truly.

I'll quote this part just once more in case you missed it the first 3 times:

First: I invited you to debate "divine justice vs mercy" ,in a separate thread ,in order to respect the readers who don't like a mess of ideas in one thread, but you ignored the invitation !
I renew my invitation to have civil debate , plz, stop your off-topic mess ,and start a new thread.

I hope you won't just try ignoring it this time. You ought to stop doing that.

Really.

[Final Overture]

Umm, ok, so the point escapes you completely?  Perhaps the following verse will be helpful:

For to us a child is born,
   to us a son is given;
and the government shall be upon his shoulder,
   and his name shall be called
Wonderful Counselor, **Mighty God**,
   Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
(Isaiah 9:6)

Then, may I ask you some questions about Isaiah 9:6...
What government was on Jesus' shoulder?
When was he called Everlasting Father, if he himself said that Father is greater than him?
How can he be called Prince of Peace, if he came NOT to bring peace, but sword?

Your original question was, "if He was eternal, how could He die?"  To which the obvious answer is, He couldn't without taking to Himself a human nature.  That is why He, the Creator of the entire universe, joined Himself to a human nature, in order to become like us in every respect - yet without sin - in order to die for the sins of a people.  And, in his humanity clearly He could die.  That's not hard to understand, is it??

If eternal DIED, then he is not eternal!! If eternal became limited with flesh, then he is not eternal. And I think God is not a man (Hosea 11:9)

Not necessarily - considering that Jesus wasn't speaking Greek with the Jewish leaders and neither was the OT written in Greek originally. 

In your refusal, though, to see the relation of John 8:58 to Exodus 3:14, you miss the obvious - that Jesus claimed to exist before Abraham was born.

Yes, he spoke Aramaic, but why don't you see the connection to Gen 21:12? A seed, which is Jesus?
Angels also lived before Abraham, I don't think that means they are Gods.

since you apparently know Greek

No, I don't. I just checked that in the web.

[Egyptian]

Wow, you quoted Thomas Paine, the well-known Biblical scholar er Deist er infidel...lol. 

Whom would you like me to quote instead ,Farrell till (the well-known ex christian missionary ) ? or the rest of all non christian bible scholars ,including Jewish titans scholars in the old testament? who ALL refuted the pathetic messianic exegesis of Matthew and other writers of the new testament... 

laloumen, you already know that making sense,sometimes, doesn't require one to held a specific religion .... also bible scholarship doesn't force one to be a christian .

Sunday church preaching?  Maybe you ought to read the NT? 

The problem is not reading the passage of Matthew ,but to understand it without a preconceived idea that it holds the ultimate truth. sadly Matthew wrote his flawed exegesis and The Church and its members have swallowed it completely.

You ought to take your own advice - in accepting the words of Isaiah but giving them an impossible twist, you've already doomed your effort to failure.

why don't we let our readers judge that ? I invite them and you to take a look at my throughly refutation of te so called virgin-birth prophecy...... there they will find out about "the impossible twist of the writer of Matthew"  and his doomed failure to convince the rational reader of his messianic agenda.

there in the bottom of the page:


http://www.answering-christianity.com/blog/index.php/topic,27.msg817.html#msg817

If you would like to debate the \theme, it has to be there  ....  I will ignore any of your posts ,if you post here not there .... and any post there without quoting me.....

don't forget that we should respect the reader who come to learn something , avoiding the off-topic issues as much as possible.....  it is awful for a visitor of a thread about "marrying your children" to find off-topic messianic prophecies.... right?

again my link ,and re-invitation to debate me ,there not here, a civil objective debate on the messianic prophecies (I already refuted your argument there).... 

http://www.answering-christianity.com/blog/index.php/topic,27.msg817.html#msg817

you have no excuses to ignore debating me,isn't it?


all the best

[laloumen]

Wow, you quoted Thomas Paine, the well-known Biblical scholar er Deist er infidel...lol. 

Whom would you like me to quote instead ,Farrell till (the well-known ex christian missionary ) ? or the rest of all non christian bible scholars ,including Jewish titans scholars in the old testament? who ALL refuted the pathetic messianic exegesis of Matthew and other writers of the new testament... 

laloumen, you already know that making sense,sometimes, doesn't require one to held a specific religion .... also bible scholarship doesn't force one to be a christian .

You can quote whomever you please, it doesn't matter to me.  I debated Farrell Till years ago and found his arguments to be "substandard" and his person execrable. 

I would suggest Hengstenberg, _Christology of the Old Testament_, as a palliative to all the pathetic non-Messianic exegesis.  His arguments are crisp and clear and utterly conclusive in favor of the Messianic interpretation.  Indeed, anyone with eyes can see that the Messianic message is the primary thread that runs through the OT from Gen 3:15 to Malachi 3.  The simple fact of this primary purpose of the OT makes any non-Messianic interpretation of a passage such as Isaiah 7:14 obviously biased and questionable.  And the fact that Matthew outright states that the prophecy is fulfilled in the birth of the Messiah removes all doubt.  If Matthew's statement was all there was, it would be enough to remove all doubt.  But there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it could not have been fulfilled in any other person.  So, there really can be no doubt about the passage at all.

Sunday church preaching?  Maybe you ought to read the NT? 

The problem is not reading the passage of Matthew ,but to understand it without a preconceived idea that it holds the ultimate truth. sadly Matthew wrote his flawed exegesis and The Church and its members have swallowed it completely.

Your claim that Matthew's exegesis is flawed is more than arrogant, as if Matthew didn't personally know the Lord and His mother and the fully story of His birth and the affirmation of the account from the Lord Himself.  You seriously expect anyone to believe you when you have no support for your ideas AT ALL - except some claims to the contrary without exegetical support.  It is laughable.  Again, why should anyone believe you given that you haven't given the slightest support for your assertion?  Especially when it is flat out contradicted by the writing of a man who knew the Lord personally and walked with Him for years!  Isn't your position simply the epitome of arrogance??

You ought to take your own advice - in accepting the words of Isaiah but giving them an impossible twist, you've already doomed your effort to failure.

why don't we let our readers judge that ? I invite them and you to take a look at my throughly refutation of te so called virgin-birth prophecy...... there they will find out about "the impossible twist of the writer of Matthew"  and his doomed failure to convince the rational reader of his messianic agenda.

there in the bottom of the page:


http://www.answering-christianity.com/blog/index.php/topic,27.msg817.html#msg817

If you would like to debate the \theme, it has to be there  ....  I will ignore any of your posts ,if you post here not there .... and any post there without quoting me.....

don't forget that we should respect the reader who come to learn something , avoiding the off-topic issues as much as possible.....  it is awful for a visitor of a thread about "marrying your children" to find off-topic messianic prophecies.... right?

I should say that I wasn't the one who took things off topic.  Osama Abdallah decided it was ok to post some video about whether Christ died on the cross in the original thread.  If you guys don't care to stay on topic in a single thread, why should I care??

again my link ,and re-invitation to debate me ,there not here, a civil objective debate on the messianic prophecies (I already refuted your argument there).... 

http://www.answering-christianity.com/blog/index.php/topic,27.msg817.html#msg817

you have no excuses to ignore debating me,isn't it?

all the best

No problem at all.  That's why I'm here.  So far I haven't see anything resembling a cogent argument but I suppose one might crop up somewhere along the line. ;-)


In Christ,
Jim Beale

[Final Overture]

Messianic message is the primary thread that runs through the OT from Gen 3:15 to Malachi 3.  The simple fact of this primary purpose of the OT makes any non-Messianic interpretation of a passage such as Isaiah 7:14 obviously biased and questionable.  And the fact that Matthew outright states that the prophecy is fulfilled in the birth of the Messiah removes all doubt.  If Matthew's statement was all there was, it would be enough to remove all doubt.  But there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it could not have been fulfilled in any other person.  So, there really can be no doubt about the passage at all.

May I ask you then about this "prophecy", which Matthew referred to Jesus?
Matthew 2:13 When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. “Get up,” he said, “take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.”

14 So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, 15 where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.”

Matthew refers to Hosea 11
Hosea 11:1 When Israel was a child, I loved him,
    and out of Egypt I called my son.
2 But the more they were called,
    the more they went away from me.
They sacrificed to the Baals
    and they burned incense to images.
3 It was I who taught Ephraim to walk,
    taking them by the arms;
but they did not realize
    it was I who healed them.

Was Jesus a worshipper of Baals?

[laloumen]

Messianic message is the primary thread that runs through the OT from Gen 3:15 to Malachi 3.  The simple fact of this primary purpose of the OT makes any non-Messianic interpretation of a passage such as Isaiah 7:14 obviously biased and questionable.  And the fact that Matthew outright states that the prophecy is fulfilled in the birth of the Messiah removes all doubt.  If Matthew's statement was all there was, it would be enough to remove all doubt.  But there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it could not have been fulfilled in any other person.  So, there really can be no doubt about the passage at all.

May I ask you then about this "prophecy", which Matthew referred to Jesus?
Matthew 2:13 When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. “Get up,” he said, “take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.”

14 So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, 15 where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.”

Matthew refers to Hosea 11
Hosea 11:1 When Israel was a child, I loved him,
    and out of Egypt I called my son.
2 But the more they were called,
    the more they went away from me.
They sacrificed to the Baals
    and they burned incense to images.
3 It was I who taught Ephraim to walk,
    taking them by the arms;
but they did not realize
    it was I who healed them.

Was Jesus a worshipper of Baals?

What kind of question is that?  Have you heard of typology?  Israel is a type of Christ however the sense is that Christ is true Israel, true to God in contrast to Israel.

Here one ought to note the Qu'ran which states:

He said: I am only a messenger of thy Lord,
that I may bestow on thee a faultless son.
(19:19)

In your zeal to denigrate Christ, you violate the bounds of your own Qu'ran which ascribes sinlessness to Christ.

I'm sure Allah would forgive you if there was any way for him to do so...but sadly there is not.

In Christ,
Jim

[Final Overture]

What kind of question is that?

What kind of answer is that?

In your zeal to denigrate Christ, you violate the bounds of your own Qu'ran which ascribes sinlessness to Christ.

I am not denigrating Christ, wow. This prophecy turns Jesus into worshipper of Baals. Did Matthew got everything wrong?

19:19 He said, "I am only the messenger of your Lord to give you [news of] a pure boy."

[RamziBinNabil]

Jim, firstly, the God of Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) is Allah too. Proof is that 2000 years back, English did not even exists. It only came into existence in 1066 after the Normans invaded the Saxons, which was more than one a mellinium and a half after Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) was alive. If you do further on him, you would discover that the language he spoke was Aramaic, which is relevantly similar to modern-day Hebrew and modern-day Arabic. Almighty God's name in Aramaic is Allah, and you could even look it up if you do not believe me. Even Arab Christians and Jews say Allah when mentioning God. For proof, go to any hotel or motel on the planet. In the drawer beside the bed, what do you find? A Bible. Flip about six or eight pages and you will find a list of the languages that they are translating the Bible into, and there is a small sample beside each language. It goes by alphabetical order, starting with the Afrikaans language first and then going on to Arabic. The sample is extracted from the Gospel of John (peace and blessings be upon him), chapter 3, verse 16, and beside the Arabic translation it reads: "And for Allah so loved the world...", with the word Allah replacing the word God. Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) was not even called Jesus. He was called `Īsā. Most of the words we use today were not even used at the time of Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him). For example, Job was 'Ayyūb, Abraham was 'Ībrāhīm, Moses was Mūsā and Joseph was called Yūsuf. Even if you go to Israel or anywhere else and meet some Jews, they will tell you this is right. 
Secondly, regarding Jesus Christ (peace and blessings be upon him) being crucified or not; Muslims believe that Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) was never crucified but a look alike of him was instead. Hence, we do not believe that he rose three days later. We believe that God the Almighty raised him up to Himself and before the Day of Judgement, as our Prophet (may Almighty God bless him and grant him peace) prophesized, God will make him reappear and all people would follow one religion. Before carrying on, just avoid misunderstandings, for I swear we love and respect Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) and follow his commandments more than you do. Just from reading your message one could differ that you are one that understands in religion and had read the Bible. 
Although it is one of the six pillars of faith for us to believe in all holy books that Almighty God had descended, we Muslims do not believe in the Bible we have nowadays as it had been changed and fabricated many times. This is not my opinion by the way. A man named FF Bruce, a Bible scholar, mentions in all of his books: "We do not have a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of any of the original manuscripts of the Bible." He even became and atheist after he discovered this. Not just the Bible, but the holy book of the Jews, the Torah, as well as all other holy scriptures save the Noble Qur'an have experienced a great number of fabrications and alliterations. Thus, we Muslims only rely on the Noble Qur'an and consider it to be the exact and unchanged Word of God ever since it's revelation. Proof is that ever since the Noble Qur'an was revealed to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), a large sum of Muslims have memorized the Noble Qur'an, resulting to if anybody were to try and change even a single letter in the Noble Qur'an, it would be clearly noticeable. And in case you were wondering, yes, throughout the years, many have tried and failed to forge and change the Noble Qur'an. Nowadays, approximately 10 million Muslims worldwide know the whole Qur'an by heart. On the other hand, not a single Christian or Jew have memorized their holy scripture. Anyway, back to the subject. So I will, God willing, give you evidence from the Bible itself that Jesus (peace be upon him) could not have been crucified or killed. Keep in mind that anything I might draw out of the Bible is not necessarily the Muslim perspective. The Noble Qur'an states, "That they (the wrong-doers) said (in boast), 'We killed the Christ Jesus son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah (God)';- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them [or it appeared so unto them], and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not: Nay, Allah (God) raised him up unto Himself; and Allah (God) is Exalted in Power, Wise." [4:157]
The word "crucify" means to put to death by nailing or binding on to a cross or crucifix. In other words, a person must die on the cross to be crucified, if so does not occur, then he was not crucified. A writing that describes the life, ministry, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (peace be upon him) is called a Gospel. Judas, being the most trusted disciple doing the will of Jesus (peace be upon him), made the Christian Gnostic (Knowledge) Gospel describing the true life of Jesus (peace be upon him) which tell us that Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) was never crucified. However, it was burned by the Church Fathers in the year 325 at the Council of Nicaea and they claimed that Judas was a betrayer. This Gospel was rediscovered in the Egyptian town of Naj Hammadi by a peasant in 1945. If Jesus (peace be upon him) was not crucified and had not died then there could not have been any resurrection. A famous scholar also agreed that there was no evidence of crucifixion in the Gospel. He stated, "If you are looking for texts that depict the act of nailing persons to a cross you will not find any in the Gospels." In addition, according to Gunnar Samuelsson of Gothenburg University, the story of Jesus' execution is based on Christian traditions and artistic illustrations, and not antique texts. This is mentioned in doctoral thesis under the name of "Crucifixion in Antiquity - An Inquiry into the Background of the New Testament Terminology of Crucifixion". "The problem is descriptions of crucifixions are remarkably absent in the antique literature," said Samuelsson in an interview with the UK Daily Telegraph. "The sources where you would expect to find support for the established understanding of the event really don't say anything." 
Now let us discuss with regard to proofs from the Bible. As mentioned before, to be crucified, one must die on the cross. Jesus (peace be upon him) was put on the cross and brought down in only 3 hours. Only 3 hours is almost impossible for any person to die on a cross. Therefore, Jesus (peace be upon him) was alive. In addition, when he was bought down from the cross, his two cross mates were alive proving that Jesus (peace be upon him) was alive too. Also the legs of Jesus (peace be upon him) were not broken. What use is a broken leg to a dead man? Proving that he was alive. The stone was removed and the winding sheets were unwound proving that Jesus (peace be upon him) was alive. Keep in mind that Jesus (peace be upon him) was disguised as a gardener because he was trying to be saved from the Jews. This too indicates that he was alive at the time. When Mary Magdalene went to touch Jesus (peace be upon him), he said, "Touch me not". He was alive but in pain. The disciples had even heard from Mary Magdalene that Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) was alive. Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) said, "I have not yet ascended unto my father." That means he was not dead. In the upper room Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) showed his hands and feet to prove that he was not a spirit and that he was alive. The disciples were all overjoyed to see him as they thought that he was dead and in the spirit form. There were all happy to see him because he was alive. Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) consumed broiled fish and honeycomb to prove that he was alive. All these points are from the Bible proving that Jesus (peace be upon him) had not been crucified. These are not just random statements taken out of context.
Thirdly, do you know which is the most accurate existing Bible? It is the Gospel of Barnabas, which was claimed to have been written by Barnabas, one of the twelve disciples of Jesus Christ (peace and blessings be upon him). However, this Bible was banned to be copied. I was shocked to hear this on an all-Christian forum and was willing to discover why. The answer might not be what you expected though. Anyway, before carrying on any further, just keep in mind that none of this am I making up from my head.
I do not want to take up much of your time, so this is just a summary. From the Gospel of Barnabas two manuscripts are known to have existed, both dated to the late 16th century and written respectively in the Italian and in Spanish languages. With regards to the Spanish manuscript, it is now lost, with it's text surviving only in a partial 18th-century transcript. The Italian manuscript on the other hand houses 222 chapters. One of the main reasons contributing to the banning of this Gospel is that in some key respects, the Gospel of Barnabas conforms to the Islamic interpretation of Christian origins and completely contradicts the New Testament teachings of Christianity. For example, it generally resonates better with existing Muslim views and beliefs than with Christianity as it foretells the coming of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) by name, and rather than describing the crucifixion of the Messiah (peace be upon him), it describes him being raised up into heaven like the description of Prophet Elijah (peace be upon him) in 2 Kings. In addition, it refers to Jesus (peace be upon him) as a prophet whose objective was restricted to the house of Israel. Muslim teaching states with assurance that the prophetic Gospel delivered through Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) has been corrupted and fabricated as we have mentioned in the previous message. Thus no reliance can be placed on any text in the Christian tradition (including the four canonical gospels of the Christian New Testament) as truly representing the teachings of Jesus (peace be upon him). Since from an Islamic perspective, the Gospel of Barnabas is obviously a Christian work as it is demonstrated by its many differences from the Noble Qur'an, it too may be expected to have experienced distortion and undergone a number of fabrications. Consequently, not a single Muslim writer or scholar accepts the Gospel of Barnabas as transmitting the original and authentic Gospel revealed to Jesus (peace be upon him) and very few deny that the known Italian text contains substantial elements of late fabrication and alteration. Nevertheless, Muslim writers are gratified to note those elements of the Gospel of Barnabas that do accord with Qur'anic teaching, such as the denial of Christ (peace be upon him) being Son of God and the prophetic prediction by Jesus (peace be upon him) describing the advent of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). Therefore, Muslims regard these specific elements and details as representing the survival of suppressed early traditions of the Messiah (peace be upon him) much more compatible with Islam. 
I swear to God even when I discovered that I was not even expected anything like that.