tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6611656694539409003.post2751098140179045251..comments2023-11-03T02:13:10.341-07:00Comments on The Quran and the Bible: A Muslim Investigation: Does Islam Teach "Substitutionary Atonement"? - A Response to a Christian ApologistFaiz S.http://www.blogger.com/profile/04397185181754199451noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6611656694539409003.post-67190328407242267182017-01-13T12:36:31.260-08:002017-01-13T12:36:31.260-08:00but then god releases /saves himself from "di...but then god releases /saves himself from "divine punishment" and then is now enjoying life time of bliss .<br /><br />while people who will be punished can't turn on/off divine punishment at will<br /><br />was god a self abuser?<br /><br />PLEASE God, forgive me for this thought, why do i even exist to here these lies about you?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13680000862504191052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6611656694539409003.post-91364872782121339412017-01-13T12:34:23.620-08:002017-01-13T12:34:23.620-08:00sabbath was created for man ,but god was created f...sabbath was created for man ,but god was created for divine punishment<br /><br /><br />astaghfirullah<br /><br />meaning the punishment law is more powerful than god and even god can't escape the mandate..Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13680000862504191052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6611656694539409003.post-86445539310988294992017-01-13T12:32:37.986-08:002017-01-13T12:32:37.986-08:00note this point carefully
if god is CREATOR of al...note this point carefully<br /><br />if god is CREATOR of all , then he created his own punishment <br /><br />astaghfirullahAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13680000862504191052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6611656694539409003.post-41646657235937559442017-01-13T12:29:07.196-08:002017-01-13T12:29:07.196-08:00this is the lies we need to address here
https://...this is the lies we need to address here<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOTx5Prbi70<br /><br /><br />"god came down to experience our suffering"<br /><br />the creator of pain receptors, the creator of pain, the creator of flesh "came to experience..."<br /><br />even when he is punishing on earth and hell he is experiencing our pains ?<br /><br />was he born a disabled handicap ? astaghfirullah<br /><br />don't know why they get a buzz about a god creating punishment of himself, if god is creator of all then he created his own punishment lol<br /><br />what a joke , what a laugh<br /><br />they see it as "great thing" i see it as blasphemy which reduces gods power to <br /><br />1. punish people <br />2. punish himself<br /><br />if he doesn't punish himself he is forced to kill everyone lol<br /><br />this means this is not god to be worshipped . Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13680000862504191052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6611656694539409003.post-19951809671519102872017-01-04T05:44:41.065-08:002017-01-04T05:44:41.065-08:00god so loved the world that he allowed adam to tra...god so loved the world that he allowed adam to transfer his sins downwards, killed of everyone , saved a few people and allowed them once again to transfer their sins downwards, until god became a meat god and transferred sins from all directions<br /><br />god is only a man and plans like one. <br /><br />may God almighty protect us from this filthy thought<br />ameenAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13680000862504191052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6611656694539409003.post-19525752675933634852016-12-28T16:47:48.744-08:002016-12-28T16:47:48.744-08:00InshaAllah, I will look into writing a future arti...InshaAllah, I will look into writing a future article on this topic. Thanks for the suggestions!Faiz S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04397185181754199451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6611656694539409003.post-86818738292401815952016-12-01T05:53:46.990-08:002016-12-01T05:53:46.990-08:00brother, please make post using logical argumentat...brother, please make post using logical argumentation why god does not need to punish himself or CREATED flesh , before human gets close to God i.e god does not need Sacrificial rituals between us and Him. <br /><br />even jeremiah realised that human and animal sacrifices are not needed. what is needed is guilt and repentance. think about if we do not see suffering and bodies blown up, crucified, shot , hunger etc, will we not repent ? <br /><br />repentance should come even when one does not see suffering. <br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13680000862504191052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6611656694539409003.post-41512651179583887622016-08-16T18:55:08.535-07:002016-08-16T18:55:08.535-07:00As-salaam alaikum brother James.
In my opinion, S...As-salaam alaikum brother James.<br /><br />In my opinion, Shabbir Ally is correct to say that God did not literally tell Ibrahim (as) to sacrifice his son. He saw it in a vision, though I can't say if I agree that it was only his "interpretation". If it was and interpretation, then it was an inspired interpretation since prophets cannot make mistakes in such matters. It was not incorrect of Ibrahim to think that God had commanded him to sacrifice his son. Indeed, it was the correct interpretation. Faiz S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17623438925830446169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6611656694539409003.post-27966908321474898412016-08-16T18:54:30.868-07:002016-08-16T18:54:30.868-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Faiz S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17623438925830446169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6611656694539409003.post-37143691286107848652016-08-14T02:49:08.603-07:002016-08-14T02:49:08.603-07:00akhee faiz , i notice ken didn't bother coming...akhee faiz , i notice ken didn't bother coming back here .<br /><br />akhee faiz, shabir alli says ibraheem saw in a vision that he should...<br /><br />"it was ibraheems INTERPRETATION..."<br /><br />does this mean ali thinks that ibraheems INTERPRETATION was not really divine ?<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeR2oOhe-dw<br /><br />time line 10:06 <br /><br />your thoughts bro<br /><br />maybe i have misrep aliAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13680000862504191052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6611656694539409003.post-8380192666597051542016-05-13T10:59:19.835-07:002016-05-13T10:59:19.835-07:00NK: So my point is that how is this legendary deve...NK: So my point is that how is this legendary development thing argued by the apologists. If Mark is written somewhere in the 70s, then how the hell anyone knows how much legendary development has happened before Mark put pen to paper? Of course, at this point the magical oral tradition comes to the scene and tries to save Mark’s reliability, but we know that that doesn’t work either (you showed that in OHJ, if I remember correctly, with mock-analogy [did you come up that yourself?]).<br /><br />Indeed. In OHJ I have the critic imagine they are on trial for murder, and the only evidence against them is a Gospel of John written anonymously decades later that says lots of people saw you commit the murder (pp. 251-52). Once prison is on the line, any confidence they had in the reliability of the Gospels quickly gets tossed. (Another mock analogy is the Hero Savior of Viet Nam story I use in Why I Am Not a Christian.)<br />And an important point here, is that the gospel had evolved enormously over four decades and across three continents, before Mark composed. I discuss this in Proving History, pp. 126-28. And more in OHJ, index, “rapid legendary development.”<br /><br /><br /><br />NK: Apologists say “Mark doesn’t show signs of legendary development as much as later Gospels do”. Okay, but if they want to argue that Mark hasn’t gone through legendary development, then should this argument be made in the respect of earlier sources of Mark? So to say that B has (or has not) gone through legendary development, we should have A to verify this. But in the case of Mark, we don’t. So this legendary development thing can’t really be verified. What do you think? Am I on the right track?<br /><br />Yes, you are.<br />They can’t say Mark “shows no signs of development” without a prior text to compare it to.<br />What they usually instead mean is that Mark “looks” unremarkable to them. That is, that its ridiculous claims (withering fig trees, suns going out for three hours, conversations with demons, instantly converting disciples without even a conversation, walking on water, clearing a ten acre temple square single-handedly, Sanhedrin trials on a holy day, missing bodies, mysterious prophetic boys, etc.) are not “as ridiculous” as later ridiculous claims (like Matthew’s nativity story or Peter’s gigantic Jesus story). That’s ridiculous. But these are Christian apologists. They actually think there is nothing ridiculous in Mark. When in fact Mark is actually almost exactly as ridiculous as Matthew. Matthew has only added an expanded beginning and ending. And some speeches. And some other minor tweaks. But really, even by itself, Mark looks as fully ridiculous as any other mythic prose tale of its time.<br /><br /><br />;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;<br />Even if they had proceeded as you propose, the events were all over and done with by 33CE and the first Gospel was not composed until almost 40 years later and all the Gospels were composed anonymously. So, surmise as you might, there is an insurmountable gap and disconnect between their memories–however accurate they might have been–and the stories we have in the Gospels.<br /><br /> <br /><br />brother, why does this evil and adulterous christian people have no shame? <br />why don't they see that textual criticism, source criticism is eating alive their religion?<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13680000862504191052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6611656694539409003.post-919341892660187022016-05-13T10:58:56.991-07:002016-05-13T10:58:56.991-07:00i quote
:::::::::::::::::::::legendary developme...i quote<br /><br /><br />:::::::::::::::::::::legendary development:::::::::::::::::::::::<br /><br /><br />NK: This “legendary development” thing has made me thinking. How do these people actually know how much legendary development has occurred until Mark finally wrote the thing? Apologists like to compare Mark and Gospel of Thomas (or Peter, or whatever), and say “look, look how much bullsh%% is in this other Gospels, but look how simple Mark is! This means Mark is older, and that’s why it’s more simpler”. But even if Mark is older than the other Gospel, how do they know it’s actually reliable at all? It might be more reliable than the other Gospel becauce it’s older and closer to the events that it’s talking about, but that doesn’t mean Mark is “at the beginning”.<br /><br />You are quite right. Mark could contain the same amount of legendary development from 30 to 70 A.D. as the Gospel of Peter adds to Mark. They are confusing “rate of accumulation” with “amount of accumulation.” The rate of accumulation between Mark and even just Matthew is enormous (if you consider the nativity and overblown resurrection narratives as accumulated legend). So the rate was clearly very high. If one thinks Matthew was written within 20 years of Mark, then one should expect Mark to contain twice as much legendary accumulation as occurs between Mark and Matthew (since Mark is at least 40 years after its supposed source events).<br /><br />You are also right that even knowing the rate doesn’t get you to what’s true. Completely fake stories get composed immediately. Mark could be completely a fake story completely invented tout court by Mark. Or Mark could be the collection of nothing but isolated fake stories completely invented by others before him. Rate of accumulation is not useful to know if you don’t first know what the initial state of the story was. This is why urban legends pop up instantly and accumulate details rapidly. Not over decades. Not even over years. But within weeks or even days. Without even a single detail being true.<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13680000862504191052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6611656694539409003.post-69420532341367614892016-05-13T10:58:25.402-07:002016-05-13T10:58:25.402-07:00brother,
you may have heard the original sin stai...brother,<br /><br />you may have heard the original sin stained christians attacking the qurans reliability by saying that it mentions a miracle which was invented by christians decades after jesus.<br /><br />they will assume that jesus driving devils into pigs, walking on water, being tempted by satan for 40 days, becoming unrecognisable, flying to the sky like superman etc etc is all "reliable" because christian myth making wasn't fully functional in first century.<br /><br />what i have noticed is that ex-christians are attacking christian stories like christians are attacking the stories in the quran.<br /><br />i find that these hypocrite christians have no early manuscripts about abraham, moses, adam , david and others and will base their belief on FAITH that the bible is reporting some truth even thought their is large gap between the person written about and first available manuscript<br /><br />such hypocrites have no shame. <br /><br />but here is an interesting conversation about legendary development and christian double standards.<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13680000862504191052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6611656694539409003.post-66473272837799409032016-05-07T18:25:42.346-07:002016-05-07T18:25:42.346-07:00InshaAllah. Keep up the good work.InshaAllah. Keep up the good work.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10868474035994715273noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6611656694539409003.post-28991311346394533902016-05-07T11:00:36.100-07:002016-05-07T11:00:36.100-07:00InshaAllah, in a future article, I will discuss th...InshaAllah, in a future article, I will discuss the concept of "original sin" and show how the Bible directly contradicts such a concept. The passage you referred to is definitely one piece of evidence.Faiz S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04397185181754199451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6611656694539409003.post-14591950839767146092016-05-07T04:58:29.325-07:002016-05-07T04:58:29.325-07:00quote:
"Genesis 22 was a prophesy of the Mess...quote:<br />"Genesis 22 was a prophesy of the Messiah to come."<br /><br />quote:<br />That is just your own anachronistic interpretation. There is no evidence that Genesis 22 is "Messianic". Using your logic, it could just as easily be referring to the coming of Muhammad (peace be upon him)!<br /><br /><br />comment: he wants to see the animal in john/christological animal in the saying of abraham <br /><br />"god himself will provide the lamb , my son"<br /><br />i find it strange that paul did not "see" this<br />neither did the synoptic writers<br /><br />is it because abraham's "the lamb" was clearly an animal and not human sacrificial ritual judged by jewish temple sacrifices?<br /><br /><br />they will argue themselves silly and say <br /><br />"abraham predicted future lamb ..."<br />and completely trast/disregard the phrase<br /><br />"as burnt offering"<br /><br />it is shameful destruction of text to show that even prophets faith was not good enough so even he thought of physical violent human sacrificial ritual before yhwh saved his son<br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13680000862504191052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6611656694539409003.post-87185138178657832942016-05-07T04:43:58.615-07:002016-05-07T04:43:58.615-07:00Nice one. But I see you and raise you go two verse...Nice one. But I see you and raise you go two verses before the one you quoted <br /><br />13Then the little children were brought to Jesus for Him to place His hands on them and pray for them; and the disciples rebuked those who brought them. 14But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not hinder them! For the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” 15And after He had placed His hands on them, He went on from there.<br /><br />Then combine it with the yours and Isa(as) DEFINITELY didn't teach these lies they attribute to him. But al hamdoliah Allah gave him the entire nation of Muhammad(saw) to testify for him.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10868474035994715273noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6611656694539409003.post-70174741626826004352016-05-06T21:31:25.920-07:002016-05-06T21:31:25.920-07:00Matthew 18 is a good example of the contradictory ...Matthew 18 is a good example of the contradictory ideas in the Bible. It definitely shows the absurdity of the "blood atonement" argument. Another good example is Matthew 19:16ff.Faiz S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04397185181754199451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6611656694539409003.post-26942520959712618452016-05-06T21:28:29.755-07:002016-05-06T21:28:29.755-07:00Yes, I have also referred to the story of Jonah in...Yes, I have also referred to the story of Jonah in the Bible to show that repentance was perfectly acceptable. And yes, the apologists usually ignore the story or fail to offer any substantive rebuttal.Faiz S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04397185181754199451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6611656694539409003.post-82864234940534352692016-05-06T16:54:50.550-07:002016-05-06T16:54:50.550-07:00Also I forgot take this for your next post since w...Also I forgot take this for your next post since were destroying concepts in Christianity, Isa(as) aka Jesus for non Muslims didn't teach "original sin" which is further evidence against "blood atonement."<br /><br />1At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who then is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”<br /><br />2Jesus called a little child to stand among them. 3“Truly I tell you,” He said, “unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5And whoever welcomes a little child like this in My name welcomes Me.<br /><br />6But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.<br /><br />Context<br />http://biblehub.com/bsb/matthew/18.htm<br /><br />More verses of similar statements<br />http://biblehub.com/matthew/18-3.htmAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10868474035994715273noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6611656694539409003.post-22895973058900805362016-05-06T16:32:38.274-07:002016-05-06T16:32:38.274-07:00Sorry about that took me a minute to get used to t...Sorry about that took me a minute to get used to the messaging system on here. Yes in my my personal dealing with Christians (my family being HEAVY attendees of the "soul" church) they have their own beliefs (sometimes personal sometimes creedal) and THEN look for evidence instead of taking ALL the work as a collection and forming their beliefs. Whenever I bring the point of Yunus(as) there never a rebuttal because the concept has a HOST of issues to deal with to make any type of sense.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10868474035994715273noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6611656694539409003.post-60107176893557912592016-05-06T13:41:09.450-07:002016-05-06T13:41:09.450-07:00"In all due respect that is not what the OT t..."In all due respect that is not what the OT teaches. Christianity made the claim of sacrifice and that looked throughout the OT for evidence."<br /><br />That's a good point. Just like how Christians invented a suffering Messiah and then looked in the Tanakh for "prophecies".<br />Faiz S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04397185181754199451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6611656694539409003.post-29347498820557496352016-05-06T13:38:08.913-07:002016-05-06T13:38:08.913-07:00Thank you Paul.Thank you Paul.Faiz S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04397185181754199451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6611656694539409003.post-77745040913723621812016-05-06T13:37:38.568-07:002016-05-06T13:37:38.568-07:00Exactly!Exactly!Faiz S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04397185181754199451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6611656694539409003.post-77861598224113638102016-05-06T13:37:16.052-07:002016-05-06T13:37:16.052-07:00Ken, you said:
"Islam skips the NT meaning a...Ken, you said:<br /><br />"Islam skips the NT meaning and interpretation of the OT of substitutionary sacrifice, and changes the story of Genesis 22, a much older and established revelation.""<br /><br />Well of course it skips that meaning! Islam came to reverse the corruptions of the people of the book. Islam corrects the mistakes and contradictions in these stories. I have discussed some of these stories (including Genesis 22) in my other articles:<br /><br />http://quranandbible.blogspot.com/2014/01/ishmael-and-isaac-in-quran-and-bible.html<br /><br />http://quranandbible.blogspot.com/2014/01/normal-0-false-false-false-en-us-x-none_14.html<br /><br />http://quranandbible.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-fall-of-adam-and-eve-in-bible-and.html<br /><br />http://quranandbible.blogspot.com/2014/01/lot-in-quran-and-bible.html <br /><br />You said:<br /><br />"Genesis 22 was a prophesy of the Messiah to come."<br /><br />That is just your own anachronistic interpretation. There is no evidence that Genesis 22 is "Messianic". Using your logic, it could just as easily be referring to the coming of Muhammad (peace be upon him)!<br /><br />You said:<br /><br />"Just by using the basic story from the OT, Islam unknowingly was affirming substitutionary atonement, because that was the original meaning of Genesis 22, Exodus 12 (Passover), Leviticus 1-6, 16-17 (sacrificial system), I Kings (temple sacrifices) and Isaiah 53 (prophesy of Messiah to come) and Daniel 9:24-27 (more prophesy of Messiah, atonement, and then the temple was destroyed). Islam skipped all that and tries to reinterpret it, but just by having that verse of Surah 37:107, they could not get completely get rid of the concept of substitutionary atonement. Granted Islam reinterprets it, but that was not the original intention. the original intention was what the NT teaches and what Christians teach today. Islam skipped that."<br /><br />This is one large circular argument, nothing more. What Christians teach today is irrelevant, because their teachings are flat-out wrong, as we can see from the numerous inconsistencies between the Tanakh and the New Testament.<br /><br />Now, do you have any actual response to the evidence from the Quran and Ahadith that I have presented?<br />Faiz S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04397185181754199451noreply@blogger.com